I think you're talkin' about 4 years ago, in florida, right?
That's exactly the type of "short-circuiting" we're talking about here. Fact is, Bush won every single recount, including those done privately. I don't care how many times you say that Bush stole the election, it will never make it true.
Like, wow. Ok so I am European, but are you saying you rather have a whatever president, than the right to criticize him?
Criticize is one thing, but to try to derail any voices opposed to yours just wrong. I was in NY during the RNC convention. I saw people yell at delegates at the top of their lungs, tear down anything not anti-war and spit on and threaten anyone who disagrees with their point of view (I know, I was spit on and threatened). This, and the blatent lies are the political manipulation he was talking about.
Free speech does not protect one's right to lie, mislead or slander.
I have free speech rights too. Can I put a movie on prime time TV to represent my point of view? Can everyone in America? Why should McMoore get more "Free Speech" than me or anyone else?
I thought it was for "Winning the War on Terror WorldWide."
What does the "F" stand for? Other than the obvious, it could stand for "False", as in the "False Facts" that are constantly presented.
Actually, it stands for Flip-Flop, as in "I own an SUV, I don't own an SUV, my family owns an SUV."
How about "F***'ed your Fellow Vietnam Vets", or "French owned."
Finally, F is for "Fighting a more sensitive war on terror"
I hate to drop to that level, but it takes a desperate loser to make fun of a guys name. However, if kerry wants to play that game, I can come up with better F-words than W-words.
Good article. It's amazing what happens when you actually read it!
However, the article makes it seem as if there is only TiVo and MS Media Center. I rent a box from my cable company that records two high def channels at once. However, I wish it had more features listed in the article.
It would be nice to be able to burn TV shows to DVD, for example. My wife keeps recording shows that she is never going to watch and keeps them on the HDD forever (You've Got mail, Down With Love, etc). I'd like some way of backing these up to free up the drive space.
I will not purchase a TiVo because you have to pay for the unit and then pay for the service (right?). That's bogus in my opinion. If I'm going to pay a monthly fee, then I should have the box provided. Also, I'd want the DVD burning ability that TiVo will not provide me.
I won't buy TiVo nor Media Center because I don't know if they are 100% with my digital cable. Will I be able to record two shows at once or record oneand watch another? Not if it has to change the channel on my existing cable box. Will it be able to change the channel on the cable box? Can I throw my cable box out and just use the TiVo unit or Media Center CPU in it's place? I can't find answers to these questions and won't spend the money on either of these units until I know for sure that they will be an improvement over my existing PVR unit.
Finally, the radio idea sounded great. I could record the radio stuff I miss because I do stupid things like work and watch TV.
I agree with you that what happened was very wrong. However, the climate there is still 1000% better than it was before. And before, it was legally sactioned, even encouraged by the former Iraqi government. Now, we report and condemn it and charge those we find to be responsible.
My point is that is WAS MUCH WORSE BEFORE. Yes, it is still bad, but is better than it was and that point is lost on the world's media has motivated the radicles by only pointing out the bad, and not pointing out the improvement.
If everyone pulls both parties to the middle, won't they both just be the same? Remember the Futurama episode where John Jackson was running against Jack Johnson?
I feel the only answer is a run off election. While a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush, it does take away a vote from whoever you second choice may be.
As a Republican, I agree that you should be allowed to have a big wedding. Hell, I'll even bring a gift! However, I do not believe that marriage should be recognized by the government. That said, you should be given all the rights a "spouse" would get, like visiting a sick partner, transfer of property, sharing health insurance or whatever. I guess you could say I'm for "unions" that hold all the rights and privelages of marriage, but I'm against gay marriage. To me, marriage is a sacred institution and should be protected. Not necessarily from gays, but from the two college room mates that are not gay who are just looking for a tax cut. Or maybe the legal immegrant who wants to bring in an illegal immegrant and uses marriage as a way to do so. Or the redneck in Arkansas that wants to marry his kid sister... Whatever.
Just like pro abortion people say that any limits on abortion in any way will lead to the repeal of a woman's right to vote, I feel that any incursion on the sanctity of marriage will lead to the fall of the family. Neither is really justified.
I guess my biggest beef is the fact that a state judge in another state can tell me what the laws should be in my state. That's probably what I find most offensive.
I'm for all the marriage rights, but please, just don't call it marriage and you'll have my vote.
Sorry, that's the first I've heard of it. I was actually talking about the Abu Ghraib prison thingie.
The article you point to is the only one I've seen on a child abuse prison scandal and is full of "unnamed sources". If true, those responsible will and should be held as such.
1) The bottom line is that Bush's superior officers said he fulfilled his duty. Kerry's superior officers said that if they knew the truth about what happened, they would've never given him his medals.
2) Bush didn't lie about WMD's in Iraq. If he did, then so did Clinton, Feinstein, Chirac, Shroeder, Kerry, Edwards and so on. I think all of these people honestly believed that Iraq had the stockpiles. We know that they were still doing research and trying to acquire the stockpiles. The difference is that Bush was the only one of these with the Balls to do anything about it. The strategy of not bombing below 10000 feet would not have worked in Iraq. Saddam was settled in and was not leaving. Had we used Clinton's strategy of lobbing missiles from afar, we'd still be in the same place were in in 2000. Oh, except more Iraqi civilians would be dead.
3) See number one.
"Funny how your word for "containing facts that disprove my argument" is "partisan"" Just like McMoore's movie contained all facts. Again, see number one.
When I see men getting their hands and heads chopped off and I hear stories of men receiving video tapes of their wives being raped or have to sit their while their kids legs are broken, I have a hard time callng Iraq a mistake and I doubt those that lived throught that would say it was a mistake either. You mention other countries that are "worse" than Iraq, like Korea and Iran. Well, it would be nice to go into both of those, but after all the "Bush is Hitler" protests that we saw, I don't see how we can "liberate" any country.
Besides, Iran has more or less free elections, and they are electing moderates. Eventually, the radical clerics may fall there. Our attacking Iran will only empower those clerics and hurt the democracy that is trying to take place there.
Korea is a different case. For starters, S. Korea does not want us to go to war with N. Korea. Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and even Iran liked the idea of Saddam being gone, even if only privately.
Finally, we had intel from Russia, according to Putin, that Iraq was indeed planning to attack the US. So what was Bush to do? Ignore the intel and let an attack that makes 9-11 look like any other weekday take place? Could you imagine the commission on that one? The "Bush knew" attacks would be true! Or he could take Saddam out and show the world that we are not to be fucked with. I like that one best!
Yes, the intel pointing to WMD stockpiles was wrong, but the WMD research intel was not. You don't leave a man like that in power when you know he has no problems using WMD's when he is sitting on top of 15% of the world's oil to pay for the research.
I'm not saying that torturing prisoners is OK, but calling panties on the head of prisoner torture is a politically motivated exageration. There are people around the world that pay good money for that kind of "torture". What the reports should've included was the real torture that happened there before the war. For example:
Before: Hands being chopped off. After: Panties on head.
Before: Women being raped and the video sent to their husbands. After: dog barking at man in undies
Before: Children tortured infront of their parents. After: Must wear bag on head while ugly American girl points at your pee-pee.
I'm not blaming those that report it. I'm blaming those that harped on it endlessly. I'm blaming those that gave false testimony under oath before a Senate committee and the world calling American soldiers criminals leading the torture of Amercian POW's.
Kerry said objection his objection to the $87 billion to equip the troops in Iraq was that it did not repeal the Bush tax cuts. In other words, it was more important to hand Bush a political defeat than it was to equip our troops.
But in reality:
Kerry was in trouble for voting for the war during the democratic primaries. He could not compound that by voting to pay for it and still be able to compete with Howard Dean. So, in other words, it was more important to gain a political victory for himself than it was to equip the troops.
All partisanship aside; The troops were in no danger of not being equipped. Bush would have either brought the troops home or made whatever consessions he needed to do in order to make sure those men and women got what needed. However, it was John Kerry's intention to make it as painful as possible for the President.
What made Vietnam a debacle was the fact that our soldiers were muzzled (you can bomb this area, but not that one) and not supported (Hanoi Jane and Kerry calling US soldiers criminals). Just like today when Kerry votes to send troops overseas, but votes against the support they need. That is the attitude that will make Iraq another Vietnam.
Also, I'd hardly call Clinton's war in Bosnia a winning one. We still have troops over there. Didn't he say they'd all be home by Christmas?
Finally, all leaders agreed with the "faulty intelligence", Clinton, Kerry, Bush, Bush, Feinstein, Chirac, Shroeder, Blaire, Putin, everyone. This means that they all thought Iraq was a danger to the US and the world but none of them, except for the Bushes and Blaire, were willing to do a damn thing about it. The "War on Terror" is not easy, it may be Hell for a while, but I don't want someone to "lead us out of it" (retreat). I want to in head first and win it.
I don't want to be out of Iraq ASAP. I want to stay there as long as it takes to get the job done right! I don't want someone in office who wants a "more sensitive" campaign against terror. I want someone who will kill terrorists.
That's where you are wrong. Those statements that Kerry made motivated the enemy. "See, those Americans are raping our women and killing our men." The sad part is, it was not true. Kerry was giving testimony under oath from heresay from "soldiers" who were not really soldiers at all. John Kerry saying that it had no effect on soldiers who did not commit crimes is wishful thinking. John McCain and others reported that quotes from John Kerry and Jane Fonda were relayed to the soldiers and used as an excuse for torture.
In the same way, the Abu Ghraib issue motivated radicals in Iraq. Nick Berg lost his head over Abu Ghraib, yet he had nothing to do with it. I'm not saying that it should not have been reported, but it should have been reported, in writing, to the soldier's superiors, not the press. If that fails, go up the chain of command until you get to the top. If nothing happens, THEN you go to the press, with everything documented. This way, it is not the PFC who goes to jail, but all those who are above you in the chain of command. Now we'll never know how far it goes up, if it goes up at all.
To put this back on topic... If the person who took those pictures at Abu Ghraib had claimed ownership, maybe Nick Berg would have his head today.
My point is that Kerry sat there before a Senate committee and claimed that those he served with were criminals. It was found later that the people who made the claims Kerry was referring to were not soldiers at all. So he was a back-stabber because he gave testimony from heresay that accused those he served with of these crimes. It is one thing to oppose the war, but it's something else entirely to make false accusations against those that would've saved your life.
Yes, Vietnam was AFU. Not so much because we were there, but because our soldiers over there were muzzled and not supported. Kinda what Kerry wants to do to the soldiers in Iraq right now. He did vote to send them and then vote not to equip them.
Either way, I made the point because someone said "Show me where" Kerry said such things and that's exactly what I did.
So what? I could just as easily say that a wealthy foreigner is supporting Democrat groups with sole purpose of defeating Bush. From http://www.americandaily.com/article/165 Billiona ire George Soros, who was indicted for fraudulent transactions, is a Democrat. Soros has stated that he will spend whatever it takes to get rid of George Bush. Soros is funding groups like MoveOn.org.
So why is it suddenly wrong for an American to support Veteran's supporting Republicans and it's OK for a foreigner to support Democratic ones?
That's my point, hypocrisy, and it goes both ways to some extent.
And... Bush has not "impugned the military record of his opponent", the 529's have done that (or whatever number). Just like McMoore and MoveOn.org compare Bush to Hitler. Has Bush taken over all of Europe and gassed 6 million people? Has Bushed suspended elections and carpet bombed cities? No? They how is he Hitler again? But as soon as a group questions JK's military record, the record that JK has touts but has refused to release completely, they are called "biggots and hatemongerers".
It's not that I disagree with criticism, that's fair, it's the level of blind hatred that gets to me. I was a democrat before ANSWER came along.
1) True, Clinton is not running today. But those that said his lack of service did not matter are saying GWB's lack of service does. I have more against the people who support Kerry than Kerry himself.
2) Yes, Clinton sent soldiers to their deaths to dispose of Slobodon Millosovich in Bosnia (forgive an misspellings). What did Slobo do to make that war justified that Saddam didn't do? We had no UN resolution agains Bosnia, much less the 17 that were violated by Iraq. Over a million children did not die in Bosnia, as they did in Iraq. Yet, Clinton was given a pass while Bush is called Hitler. Why?
3) Trust me, if Bush were AWOL, he would have been tossed out on his ass. He met his obligation. Even that partisan site you posted says, "substitute training for a missed UTA was performed, it was associated with a specific required UTA period." I could even put a slanted Micheal Moore type spin on it and say, "While Kerry spent a whole 4 months in Vietnam defending the Vietnamese and 2 years protesting America, GWB was actually defending America and Americans from the threat of Soviet bombers here in the US."
The boat hit a mine, that was the enemy fire that Kerry is said to have run from. The enemy fire from the shore that Kerry so valiantly ignored is said to have not existed.
If you finished reading my post, you would see that a run off election would be an excellent solution to the circular logic.
Again, for those with short memories: No one will vote for a third party candidate because of the Perot/Nader effect. If two liberal/conservative candidates are running and take 30% of the vote each, the other side will win with 40%, even though more were against him/her than were for him/her. With a run off election, people are free to vote for whoever they want during the "first" without falling into the problem of "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush".
I do not support bombing an apartment building to get at one guy. However, at least there was a legitimage target. If Sharon were in a pizza parlor full of kids, I could almost see the justification for bombing it. But there was nothing but kids in there. There was no legitimate target, only terror.
In the same sense, I really can't call bombing the Pentagon a terrorist act. The Pentagon is a legitimate military target. I can call flying a plane full of civilians into the Pentagon a terrorist act, however. Bombing an military base is war. Bombing a pizza parolor is terrorism. Israel goes after military targets. They don't kill just to kill.
"When Arabs love their children more than they hate Jews, there will be peace."
In an attempt to be more on topic: I feel that free speech can be limited if it is full of propoganda and lies. Bush is Hitler, and Clinton murders his opponents are good examples of speech that should have a leash on it.
And Bob Dole gave his right arm for his country, literally. Clinton left the country to protest on foreign soil. Yet the same Democrats that said Clinton's war record was irrelevant are now saying that Kerry's and Bush's are critical. What has changed?
If you are going to take a position, at least be consistent.
I thought the relentless attack on Clinton was wrong and did not understand how it could get any worse. Granted, Clinton broke the law. Not when he received a Lewinsky, but when he lied about it a Grand Jury. Still, it was not worth impeachment.
Today I see things like hippies calling the President evil, a fascist, and a baby killer. Why? I mean, these people didn't say a word when Clinton invaded Bosnia. What did Milosovich do that Hussein did not? Why is it OK to bomb white Europeans that will never have the ability to harm the US and it's not OK to bomb radical Arabs who are sitting on 15% of the world's oil. It was a war for oil, btw, but not because we wanted it, but because with those resources, Hussein could do anything, given time. We can't keep sanctions up forever... but I digress. My point is that Bush is not evil, he's not a baby killer, he's not a fascist, and the "Anyone But Bush" ideology just shows how blinded by hate these people really are?
I mean seriously, what did Bush do that makes people hate him more than Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Pol Pot combined? Are democrats just sore losers?
I'm beginning to think that putting the breaks on some of this hate speech is not a bad idea. Why should an extreme minority have a voice that outweighs over half the country? Why is it OK for McMoore to make "docu-comedy" that is extremely misleading and implies lies and not OK for a book to question John Kerry's war record? Why didn't F-911 get a tenth of the scrutiny by the press that "Unfit for Command" is receiving? I'm not in favor or restricting free speech, but I don't think it's fair that my only sound board is this forum while the Dixie Chicks get several stages to push their dribble. Trust me, I know much more about what goes on around me than the "Chicks" could ever hope to. And just so you know, I'm ashamed they are from Texas.
Slashdot Mirror
Free speech does not protect one's right to lie, mislead or slander.
I have free speech rights too. Can I put a movie on prime time TV to represent my point of view? Can everyone in America? Why should McMoore get more "Free Speech" than me or anyone else?
"W is for Wrong"?
I thought it was for "Winning the War on Terror WorldWide."
What does the "F" stand for? Other than the obvious, it could stand for "False", as in the "False Facts" that are constantly presented.
Actually, it stands for Flip-Flop, as in "I own an SUV, I don't own an SUV, my family owns an SUV."
How about "F***'ed your Fellow Vietnam Vets", or "French owned."
Finally, F is for "Fighting a more sensitive war on terror"
I hate to drop to that level, but it takes a desperate loser to make fun of a guys name. However, if kerry wants to play that game, I can come up with better F-words than W-words.
Isn't that Princess Leia and Luke Skywalker's mother?
Good article. It's amazing what happens when you actually read it!
However, the article makes it seem as if there is only TiVo and MS Media Center. I rent a box from my cable company that records two high def channels at once. However, I wish it had more features listed in the article.
It would be nice to be able to burn TV shows to DVD, for example. My wife keeps recording shows that she is never going to watch and keeps them on the HDD forever (You've Got mail, Down With Love, etc). I'd like some way of backing these up to free up the drive space.
I will not purchase a TiVo because you have to pay for the unit and then pay for the service (right?). That's bogus in my opinion. If I'm going to pay a monthly fee, then I should have the box provided. Also, I'd want the DVD burning ability that TiVo will not provide me.
I won't buy TiVo nor Media Center because I don't know if they are 100% with my digital cable. Will I be able to record two shows at once or record oneand watch another? Not if it has to change the channel on my existing cable box. Will it be able to change the channel on the cable box? Can I throw my cable box out and just use the TiVo unit or Media Center CPU in it's place? I can't find answers to these questions and won't spend the money on either of these units until I know for sure that they will be an improvement over my existing PVR unit.
Finally, the radio idea sounded great. I could record the radio stuff I miss because I do stupid things like work and watch TV.
I agree with you that what happened was very wrong. However, the climate there is still 1000% better than it was before. And before, it was legally sactioned, even encouraged by the former Iraqi government. Now, we report and condemn it and charge those we find to be responsible.
My point is that is WAS MUCH WORSE BEFORE. Yes, it is still bad, but is better than it was and that point is lost on the world's media has motivated the radicles by only pointing out the bad, and not pointing out the improvement.
If everyone pulls both parties to the middle, won't they both just be the same? Remember the Futurama episode where John Jackson was running against Jack Johnson?
I feel the only answer is a run off election. While a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush, it does take away a vote from whoever you second choice may be.
As a Republican, I agree that you should be allowed to have a big wedding. Hell, I'll even bring a gift! However, I do not believe that marriage should be recognized by the government. That said, you should be given all the rights a "spouse" would get, like visiting a sick partner, transfer of property, sharing health insurance or whatever. I guess you could say I'm for "unions" that hold all the rights and privelages of marriage, but I'm against gay marriage. To me, marriage is a sacred institution and should be protected. Not necessarily from gays, but from the two college room mates that are not gay who are just looking for a tax cut. Or maybe the legal immegrant who wants to bring in an illegal immegrant and uses marriage as a way to do so. Or the redneck in Arkansas that wants to marry his kid sister... Whatever.
Just like pro abortion people say that any limits on abortion in any way will lead to the repeal of a woman's right to vote, I feel that any incursion on the sanctity of marriage will lead to the fall of the family. Neither is really justified.
I guess my biggest beef is the fact that a state judge in another state can tell me what the laws should be in my state. That's probably what I find most offensive.
I'm for all the marriage rights, but please, just don't call it marriage and you'll have my vote.
Sorry, that's the first I've heard of it. I was actually talking about the Abu Ghraib prison thingie.
The article you point to is the only one I've seen on a child abuse prison scandal and is full of "unnamed sources". If true, those responsible will and should be held as such.
1) The bottom line is that Bush's superior officers said he fulfilled his duty. Kerry's superior officers said that if they knew the truth about what happened, they would've never given him his medals.
2) Bush didn't lie about WMD's in Iraq. If he did, then so did Clinton, Feinstein, Chirac, Shroeder, Kerry, Edwards and so on. I think all of these people honestly believed that Iraq had the stockpiles. We know that they were still doing research and trying to acquire the stockpiles. The difference is that Bush was the only one of these with the Balls to do anything about it.
The strategy of not bombing below 10000 feet would not have worked in Iraq. Saddam was settled in and was not leaving. Had we used Clinton's strategy of lobbing missiles from afar, we'd still be in the same place were in in 2000. Oh, except more Iraqi civilians would be dead.
3) See number one.
"Funny how your word for "containing facts that disprove my argument" is "partisan""
Just like McMoore's movie contained all facts. Again, see number one.
When I see men getting their hands and heads chopped off and I hear stories of men receiving video tapes of their wives being raped or have to sit their while their kids legs are broken, I have a hard time callng Iraq a mistake and I doubt those that lived throught that would say it was a mistake either. You mention other countries that are "worse" than Iraq, like Korea and Iran. Well, it would be nice to go into both of those, but after all the "Bush is Hitler" protests that we saw, I don't see how we can "liberate" any country.
Besides, Iran has more or less free elections, and they are electing moderates. Eventually, the radical clerics may fall there. Our attacking Iran will only empower those clerics and hurt the democracy that is trying to take place there.
Korea is a different case. For starters, S. Korea does not want us to go to war with N. Korea. Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and even Iran liked the idea of Saddam being gone, even if only privately.
Finally, we had intel from Russia, according to Putin, that Iraq was indeed planning to attack the US. So what was Bush to do? Ignore the intel and let an attack that makes 9-11 look like any other weekday take place? Could you imagine the commission on that one? The "Bush knew" attacks would be true! Or he could take Saddam out and show the world that we are not to be fucked with. I like that one best!
Yes, the intel pointing to WMD stockpiles was wrong, but the WMD research intel was not. You don't leave a man like that in power when you know he has no problems using WMD's when he is sitting on top of 15% of the world's oil to pay for the research.
I'm not saying that torturing prisoners is OK, but calling panties on the head of prisoner torture is a politically motivated exageration. There are people around the world that pay good money for that kind of "torture". What the reports should've included was the real torture that happened there before the war. For example:
Before: Hands being chopped off.
After: Panties on head.
Before: Women being raped and the video sent to their husbands.
After: dog barking at man in undies
Before: Children tortured infront of their parents.
After: Must wear bag on head while ugly American girl points at your pee-pee.
I'm not blaming those that report it. I'm blaming those that harped on it endlessly. I'm blaming those that gave false testimony under oath before a Senate committee and the world calling American soldiers criminals leading the torture of Amercian POW's.
Kerry said objection his objection to the $87 billion to equip the troops in Iraq was that it did not repeal the Bush tax cuts. In other words, it was more important to hand Bush a political defeat than it was to equip our troops.
But in reality:
Kerry was in trouble for voting for the war during the democratic primaries. He could not compound that by voting to pay for it and still be able to compete with Howard Dean. So, in other words, it was more important to gain a political victory for himself than it was to equip the troops.
All partisanship aside; The troops were in no danger of not being equipped. Bush would have either brought the troops home or made whatever consessions he needed to do in order to make sure those men and women got what needed. However, it was John Kerry's intention to make it as painful as possible for the President.
What made Vietnam a debacle was the fact that our soldiers were muzzled (you can bomb this area, but not that one) and not supported (Hanoi Jane and Kerry calling US soldiers criminals). Just like today when Kerry votes to send troops overseas, but votes against the support they need. That is the attitude that will make Iraq another Vietnam.
Also, I'd hardly call Clinton's war in Bosnia a winning one. We still have troops over there. Didn't he say they'd all be home by Christmas?
Finally, all leaders agreed with the "faulty intelligence", Clinton, Kerry, Bush, Bush, Feinstein, Chirac, Shroeder, Blaire, Putin, everyone. This means that they all thought Iraq was a danger to the US and the world but none of them, except for the Bushes and Blaire, were willing to do a damn thing about it. The "War on Terror" is not easy, it may be Hell for a while, but I don't want someone to "lead us out of it" (retreat). I want to in head first and win it.
I don't want to be out of Iraq ASAP. I want to stay there as long as it takes to get the job done right! I don't want someone in office who wants a "more sensitive" campaign against terror. I want someone who will kill terrorists.
That's where you are wrong. Those statements that Kerry made motivated the enemy. "See, those Americans are raping our women and killing our men." The sad part is, it was not true. Kerry was giving testimony under oath from heresay from "soldiers" who were not really soldiers at all. John Kerry saying that it had no effect on soldiers who did not commit crimes is wishful thinking. John McCain and others reported that quotes from John Kerry and Jane Fonda were relayed to the soldiers and used as an excuse for torture.
In the same way, the Abu Ghraib issue motivated radicals in Iraq. Nick Berg lost his head over Abu Ghraib, yet he had nothing to do with it. I'm not saying that it should not have been reported, but it should have been reported, in writing, to the soldier's superiors, not the press. If that fails, go up the chain of command until you get to the top. If nothing happens, THEN you go to the press, with everything documented. This way, it is not the PFC who goes to jail, but all those who are above you in the chain of command. Now we'll never know how far it goes up, if it goes up at all.
To put this back on topic... If the person who took those pictures at Abu Ghraib had claimed ownership, maybe Nick Berg would have his head today.
My point is that Kerry sat there before a Senate committee and claimed that those he served with were criminals. It was found later that the people who made the claims Kerry was referring to were not soldiers at all. So he was a back-stabber because he gave testimony from heresay that accused those he served with of these crimes. It is one thing to oppose the war, but it's something else entirely to make false accusations against those that would've saved your life.
Yes, Vietnam was AFU. Not so much because we were there, but because our soldiers over there were muzzled and not supported. Kinda what Kerry wants to do to the soldiers in Iraq right now. He did vote to send them and then vote not to equip them.
Either way, I made the point because someone said "Show me where" Kerry said such things and that's exactly what I did.
So what? I could just as easily say that a wealthy foreigner is supporting Democrat groups with sole purpose of defeating Bush.a ire George Soros, who was indicted for fraudulent transactions, is a Democrat. Soros has stated that he will spend whatever it takes to get rid of George Bush. Soros is funding groups like MoveOn.org.
From http://www.americandaily.com/article/165
Billion
So why is it suddenly wrong for an American to support Veteran's supporting Republicans and it's OK for a foreigner to support Democratic ones?
That's my point, hypocrisy, and it goes both ways to some extent.
And... Bush has not "impugned the military record of his opponent", the 529's have done that (or whatever number). Just like McMoore and MoveOn.org compare Bush to Hitler. Has Bush taken over all of Europe and gassed 6 million people? Has Bushed suspended elections and carpet bombed cities? No? They how is he Hitler again? But as soon as a group questions JK's military record, the record that JK has touts but has refused to release completely, they are called "biggots and hatemongerers".
It's not that I disagree with criticism, that's fair, it's the level of blind hatred that gets to me. I was a democrat before ANSWER came along.
1) True, Clinton is not running today. But those that said his lack of service did not matter are saying GWB's lack of service does. I have more against the people who support Kerry than Kerry himself.
2) Yes, Clinton sent soldiers to their deaths to dispose of Slobodon Millosovich in Bosnia (forgive an misspellings). What did Slobo do to make that war justified that Saddam didn't do? We had no UN resolution agains Bosnia, much less the 17 that were violated by Iraq. Over a million children did not die in Bosnia, as they did in Iraq. Yet, Clinton was given a pass while Bush is called Hitler. Why?
3) Trust me, if Bush were AWOL, he would have been tossed out on his ass. He met his obligation. Even that partisan site you posted says, "substitute training for a missed UTA was performed, it was associated with a specific required UTA period."
I could even put a slanted Micheal Moore type spin on it and say, "While Kerry spent a whole 4 months in Vietnam defending the Vietnamese and 2 years protesting America, GWB was actually defending America and Americans from the threat of Soviet bombers here in the US."
Good eye.
The boat hit a mine, that was the enemy fire that Kerry is said to have run from. The enemy fire from the shore that Kerry so valiantly ignored is said to have not existed.
Thanx for catching my "unclarity".
If you finished reading my post, you would see that a run off election would be an excellent solution to the circular logic.
Again, for those with short memories:
No one will vote for a third party candidate because of the Perot/Nader effect. If two liberal/conservative candidates are running and take 30% of the vote each, the other side will win with 40%, even though more were against him/her than were for him/her. With a run off election, people are free to vote for whoever they want during the "first" without falling into the problem of "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush".
I do not support bombing an apartment building to get at one guy. However, at least there was a legitimage target. If Sharon were in a pizza parlor full of kids, I could almost see the justification for bombing it. But there was nothing but kids in there. There was no legitimate target, only terror.
In the same sense, I really can't call bombing the Pentagon a terrorist act. The Pentagon is a legitimate military target. I can call flying a plane full of civilians into the Pentagon a terrorist act, however. Bombing an military base is war. Bombing a pizza parolor is terrorism. Israel goes after military targets. They don't kill just to kill.
"When Arabs love their children more than they hate Jews, there will be peace."
In an attempt to be more on topic:
I feel that free speech can be limited if it is full of propoganda and lies. Bush is Hitler, and Clinton murders his opponents are good examples of speech that should have a leash on it.
And Bob Dole gave his right arm for his country, literally. Clinton left the country to protest on foreign soil. Yet the same Democrats that said Clinton's war record was irrelevant are now saying that Kerry's and Bush's are critical. What has changed?
If you are going to take a position, at least be consistent.
Well put!
I thought the relentless attack on Clinton was wrong and did not understand how it could get any worse. Granted, Clinton broke the law. Not when he received a Lewinsky, but when he lied about it a Grand Jury. Still, it was not worth impeachment.
Today I see things like hippies calling the President evil, a fascist, and a baby killer. Why? I mean, these people didn't say a word when Clinton invaded Bosnia. What did Milosovich do that Hussein did not? Why is it OK to bomb white Europeans that will never have the ability to harm the US and it's not OK to bomb radical Arabs who are sitting on 15% of the world's oil. It was a war for oil, btw, but not because we wanted it, but because with those resources, Hussein could do anything, given time. We can't keep sanctions up forever... but I digress. My point is that Bush is not evil, he's not a baby killer, he's not a fascist, and the "Anyone But Bush" ideology just shows how blinded by hate these people really are?
I mean seriously, what did Bush do that makes people hate him more than Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Pol Pot combined? Are democrats just sore losers?
I'm beginning to think that putting the breaks on some of this hate speech is not a bad idea. Why should an extreme minority have a voice that outweighs over half the country? Why is it OK for McMoore to make "docu-comedy" that is extremely misleading and implies lies and not OK for a book to question John Kerry's war record? Why didn't F-911 get a tenth of the scrutiny by the press that "Unfit for Command" is receiving? I'm not in favor or restricting free speech, but I don't think it's fair that my only sound board is this forum while the Dixie Chicks get several stages to push their dribble. Trust me, I know much more about what goes on around me than the "Chicks" could ever hope to. And just so you know, I'm ashamed they are from Texas.