Like George AWOL Bush is any better... at least we *KNOW* Kerry served. We still can't get a straight answer from the W camp as to where he was and what he was doing.
I still like the Chickenhawk Database.
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks
posted by Guest at 12:27 P.M. EST on Thu Aug 05, 2004 #
Personally, I don't care what either one did 30 years ago. Kerry and the DNC are the ones who have made Vietnam an issue all year long after Michael Moore made the AWOL claim about Bush. Terry McAuliffe decided to make Moore's AWOL comment into a campaign issue, because Terry knew Kerry's Senate voting record, which is what the Bush campaign is focusing on, wouldn't hold up.
Bush's Guard duty was discussed in 2000. The Boston Globe started it with a story in April of 2000. The New York Times investigated and concluded in the summer of 2000 that there was nothing mysterious about Bush's Guard duty.
The New York Times concluded that. The same bastion of liberalism that concluded that no matter how the vote was counted according to Gore's demands in the 2000 presidential election, Bush would have won.
"A study conducted by a newspaper consortium including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal found if there had been partial recounts under any of the various recounts sought by Gore or ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, Bush would have won under every scenario."
And you know the New York Times went fishing for scandal in both instances.
Back in 1992, John Kerry said that a person's military service or lack of service was not a factor in selecting someone to be president.
A story from Oct, 2003:
"On Feb. 27, 1992, [John] Kerry defended then presidential candidate Bill Clinton against an attack by his Democratic rival Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.). As the primary season unfolded, Kerrey, who lost part of his leg in Vietnam, had peppered Clinton with uncomfortable questions about whether the Arkansan had evaded the draft."
"Kerry hit back at his Senate colleague, saying: "I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way… What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be re-fighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary."
"In October 1992, Kerry again defended Clinton from remarks by President George H.W. Bush."
If Vietnam or military service was not an issue in 1992, why is Kerry making it an issue in 2004?
That Oct 2003 news story started with:
"Howard Dean’s presidential campaign sharply criticized Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) yesterday for seemingly flip-flopping on the importance of serving in Vietnam in presidential politics."
It's amazing how pathetic and desperate the Democrats are for any kind of scandal. That's too bad. As long as McAuliffe is in charge, the Democrat party will continue to tank. McAuliffe should have been replaced after the 2002 election. There's good blood in the Democrat party, but they get shouted down by the extremists in the party.
Kerry was McAuliffe's choice for president from the beginning. No way did he want Dean. Dean is goofy, but more real than Kerry. And McAuliffe seems to be using Moore's F-9/11 movie as a template for running Kerry's campaign.
In Kerry's convention speech, Kerry said:
"I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation, not the Saudi royal family."
Isn't that a reference to the Moore movie?
On Thursday, Kerry spoke to a group of minority journalists. Kerry criticized Bush for Bush's lack of immediate action to the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
Isn't that also a reference to the Moore movie?
From the news story (login: admin@toledotalk.com password: toledotalk):
"Kerry was asked what he would have done if he had been informed, as the president was, about an attack on America while reading to school children in Florida. His answer was critical of Bush’s decision to keep reading for another seven minutes."
" "Had I been reading to children, and had my top aide whispered in my ear, ‘America is under attack,’ I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the president of the United States had something that he needed to attend to, and I would have attended to it,” he said to applause from the journalists, who interrupted his remarks 49 times for applause."
How is life on planet Hindsight, Mr. Kerry? Let NASA know that life exists on other planets.
After the first plane hit WTC, people thought it was in accident.
From pages 38 and 39 of the 9/11 commission report:
"The President was seated in a classroom when, at 9:05, Andrew Card whispered to him: "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis. The press was standing behind the children: he saw their phones and pagers start to ring. The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening."
"The President remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes, while the children continued reading. He then returned to a holding room shortly before 9:15, where he was briefed by staff and saw television coverage. He next spoke to Vice President Cheney, Dr. Rice, New York Governor George Pataki, and FBI Director Robert Mueller. He decided to make a brief statement from the school before leaving for the airport. The Secret Service told us they were anxious to move the President to a safer location, but did not think it imperative for him to run out the door."
And also from the report:
"At 10:02 that morning, an assistant to the mission crew commander at NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector in Rome, New York, was working with his colleagues on the floor of the command center. In a brief moment of reflection, he was recorded remarking that "This is a new type of war." "
"He was, and is, right. But the conflict did not begin on 9/11. It had been publicly declared years earlier, most notaly in a declaration faxed early in 1998 to an Arabi-language newspaper in London. Few Americans had noticed it."
So Kerry said he would have told the kids the president had something to do, eh?
Well, here's some insight into what Kerry actually did on the morning of 9/11.
"According to a CNN transcript John Kerry told Larry King he “couldn’t think” and sat at a table with his colleagues until he was told what to do on that awful day."
"KING: Where were you [on 9/11?]?
KERRY: I was in the Capitol. We'd just had a meeting -- we'd just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle's office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon. And then word came from the White House, they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate, and so we immediately began the evacuation."
So Kerry saw the second plane hit the WTC. According to the 9/11 commission report, the second plane hit the WTC at 9:03:11, and AA Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37:46.
So Kerry and company couldn't think for 34 minutes? Kerry sat stunned like the rest of us. And Kerry, who is following McAuliffe's orders which are taken from Moore's F-9/11 movie, is criticizing Bush for 5-7 minutes of no action? D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-E.
Of course, Kerry is just a lowly Senator. So we'll give him a pass on 9/11. He was probably showing a movie about his action in Vietnam.
That rascal of a "maverick" John McCain has spoken about the Vietnam vets' TV ad.
"The former Vietnam prisoner of war urged President Bush to condemn the ad, which neither the White House nor the Republican Party produced."
The Bush "administration" has already denounced the ad. But, they've gone a little further and thrown a challenge to the Democrats, which in no way the Dems will accept.
"The White House, meanwhile, distanced itself from the ad and urged Kerry to join Bush in calling for an "immediate cessation" of all ads by outside groups."
Outside groups, that would be: "Called 527 committees, after the section of the tax code that permits them, the groups can accept virtually unlimited amounts from donors, so long as the groups are not directly related to an individual candidate or party."
These 527 groups, like the one sponsoring the anti-Kerry Vietnam ad, exist to get around McCain's campaign finance reform bill. Way to go McCain.
"So far, 527 committees have raised $137.9 million for causes with strong ties to Democrats. That is more than Democrat Al Gore raised in his 2000 campaign for the White House."
"Republicans initially contested the legality of 527 committees, so Republican-related groups got a late start and have raised only $16.1 million so far. But at this rate, 527 committees could raise more money than both candidates spent on the presidential campaign the last time around."
So did McCain call for Kerry to condemn Moore's pack of lies in the F-9/11 movie? Has McCain or any of the Democrats encouraged Kerry to condemn the misleading ads run by MoveOn.org?
Why are the Democrats threating to sue anyone who airs the vets' TV ad? Seems like another example of selective free speech by the Democrats.
"Lawyers for the Democratic National Committee and Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign have faxed a letter to television station managers warning them not to broadcast an ad by Kerry's Vietnam colleagues which asserts the candidate is lying about his service during the war."
Moore was embraced by the Democrats at their convention. Liberals worship Moore like he's their Messiah.
So from serving in Vietnam, Kerry thinks he could do better than Bush in the war on terror. To that same group of minority journalists Thursday, Kerry divulged his idea for the war on terror. (same login as above: admin@toledotalk.com and toledotalk. I had an extremely difficult time finding a news source that contained the entire comment.)
"Much of Kerry’s speech dealt with his promise to keep the pressure on terrorists."
And in Kerry's own words ...
"I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history."
Sensitive? Does that mean inviting the terrorists to the White House for tea and scones served with lemon curd and clotted cream?
posted by jr at 10:18 A.M. EST on Fri Aug 06, 2004 #
Almost anyone would be more effective than Bush. He obviously is clueless about how to win the peace. He makes our enemy more resolute while our friends now face the wrath of their public for assisting us. As it turns out, with no WMD found, we should have waited until we could go in under the UN flag, sharing the risk and cost. But, Bush is a cowboy...
Yes, I'll agree with Kerry. A candidates service or lack of service should not be a factor in their ability to lead the nation. But Bush's bad decisions outweight his good ones by a very large margin.
Taking cheap shots at Kerry regarding his "delayed" reaction on 9/11 is absurd. He was not the President.
As for people who accuse others of "flip-flopping... how about Bush complaining of "legacy" acceptance to colleges, as if he got into Yale on his own poor grades!
George W Bush is an air-head. He still has that silver spoon dangling from his lips. His life has been devoted to drinking too much, cozying up to big business, loving the Saudi Royal family too much, deceiving the public and protecting the interests of the wealthy.
Here's an example of why Bush is an air-head... NEWSWEEK reports that President Bush, appearing before a right-to-life
rally in Tampa, Florida, on June 17,'04, stated: "We must always remember that all human beings begin life as a feces. A Feces is a living being in the eyes of God, who has endowed that feces with all of the rights and God- given blessings of any other human being."
The audience listened in total disbelief, as the President repeated his error at least a dozen times, before realizing that he had used the word feces" when he meant to say "fetus."
And we deserve another four years of this?
Bush distorts truth into his version of reality. Will people wake up to his deceit by November?
posted by Chaz at 12:06 A.M. EST on Sun Aug 08, 2004 #
Minor correction to Chaz: According to snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/fetal.asp), Bush's feces statement never happened. Bush has said all kinds of ... er ... crap, but that's not one of them. {tips hat}
posted by Guest at 04:35 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 08, 2004 #
Looks like Chaz is full of feces. Chaz, can you please provide a link and/or a issue and page number to back up your quote?
posted by babbleman at 09:51 P.M. EST on Sat Aug 21, 2004 #
Whoa, check it out. I'm getting to know Chaz a lot better now. He quotes verbatim from urban legend emails. Guess we're going to have to watch his facts and figures a bit closer.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_bush_feces_speech.htm
posted by babbleman at 09:58 P.M. EST on Sat Aug 21, 2004 #
NEWSWEEK reports that President Bush, appearing before a right-to-life
rally in Tampa, Florida, on June 17,'04, stated:
"We must always remember that all human beings begin life as a feces. A Feces is a living being in the eyes of God, who has endowed that feces with all of the rights and God- given blessings of any other human
being." The audience listened in total disbelief, as the President repeated his
error at least a dozen times, before realizing that he had used the word 'feces".
posted by Chaz at 06:28 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 23, 2004 #
That's right, Chaz. Keep cutting and pasting. Does that make you feel better?
posted by babbleman at 09:03 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 23, 2004 #
Does "cutting and pasting" somehow remove truth? If I copy something, has it's factual accuracy diminished in the process? What sort of magic are you contemplating that eliminates the truth in the process of transmitting it? Or, is it that you deny the factual content of Newsweek? If so, please state your obviously more impressive source of knowledge.
posted by Chaz at 03:08 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 24, 2004 #
1.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/a/100561.htm
2.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/fetal.asp
3.
http://www.jewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=4060
4.
http://www.longislandpress.com/v02/i31040805/buzz.asp
I could go on, but there were like 65 billion pages on google that all say it never happened. If you still really think that it did, it would probably be alot easier to cite the issue and page number of Newsweek in which it appeared.
Your facts are about as solid and honest as Kerry's war record.
posted by babbleman at 07:41 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 24, 2004 #
You denegrate the proven war record of a real American hero - John Kerry. You probably avoided combat altogether yourself, pretty much as GW Bush did (absentee Guardsman that he was) and as that lawbreaker Cheny did, so that he could later steer unbid federal contracts to his friends at Haliburton. Do you even have a glimpse of how that looks and feels to others? Only a fool distorts the truth, and only a bigger fool does it when he himself was a coward, or failed to volunteer himself. I guess I haven't yet lost faith in Newsweek. Besides, what the hell does Kerry's war record have to do with Bush's low intelligence. Seems like you changed the subject in a poor effort to defend your opinion.
posted by Chaz at 02:09 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 25, 2004 #
>>I guess I haven't yet lost faith in Newsweek.>>
That's good Chaz, because Newsweek has nothing to do with this.
NEWSWEEK NEVER PRINTED WHAT YOU QUOTED.
Don't you get it? Bush never said it, he wasn't there that day and Newsweek never ran a story.
Michael Moore or Move On or one of your friends started a bogus email and sent it around and you fell for it.
Then you quoted it on this board as fact.
posted by babbleman at 11:38 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 27, 2004 #
Remember this... "Vietnam vets attack Kerry with TV ad"? That is our topic. Your tangential interpretation is inappropriate and unconstructive. Everyone with a brain now knows that the Vietnam Vet attacks against Kerry were false. Virtually every major news organization sent their own team to investigate and they all reached the same conclusion... the Kerry record stands above the blantanly political inventions of those vets who now dishonor their former uniform with public slander.
posted by Chaz at 05:54 P.M. EST on Sat Aug 28, 2004 #
Point taken Chaz. The next time you quote an article that was never published about an event that never happened, I'll be sure not to mention it.
Carry on with your topic.
posted by babbleman at 08:02 P.M. EST on Sun Aug 29, 2004 #
I think we've taken care of this one. Perhaps now that Kerry's war record has been vindicated, everyone will try to discuss the issues. I also hope that those Swift Boat Liars can sleep at night. Who knows, perhaps it will backfire on the Republicans. Anyway, it appears this is the end of this thread.
posted by Chaz at 08:19 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 01, 2004 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
