A GREAT DEBATE!
by Buck Evinger
WOW! The preceeding is not a word many people are using to describe the first Bush/Kerry debate, but I thought it was excellent. While the format did not allow for deep and specific policy discussion, it did allow each candidate to present their ideas for protecting America against terrorism.
John Kerry was brilliant, and I suspect that if would have been presenting himself throughout his campaign in a fashion similar to last night’s performance, this race would be much, much tighter.
George Bush was, as usual, himself. He exudes confidence about who he is and what he stands for. I thought the perfect demonstration of that were the long moments of silence that Bush had in some of his answers. While his detractors snicker and supporters squirm, Bush comfortably waits until his ready to speak…then says exactly what he’s thinking. No big whoop.
Now, with the debating critique out of the way, let’s look at some of what was said.
IRAQ
I think Kerry did a good job explaining his position on Iraq. After last night, we finally know that Kerry would do exactly what George Bush has done and is doing, only he would do it better. (My dad can beat up your dad!) Isnt’ that basically what he said last night? I AM BEGGING AND PLEADING FOR ANY KERRY SUPPORTER TO PLEASE POINT OUT SOMETHING, SOMEWHERE THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT KERRY PLANS TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN GEORGE BUSH!
Kerry is not offering anything different, because there is no other viable strategy other than the one we are persuing now. Will Kerry send more troops? Certainly he would leave troop decisions up to the generals fighting in the field. That’s what George Bush is doing. Will Kerry pull troops out? He says only when it’s the right time to do so. That’s what George Bush says to.
Kerry is Bush Lite! His mantra is….” I taste better!”
UNILATERAL ACTION
Kerry blasts Bush for relying to much on just American troops in Iraq, then slams him for not using American troops exclusively in Afghanistan. Kerry hammers Bush for not building a real coalition to defeat Iraq, but insists that we should go it alone when negotiating with North Korea, which has already proven to be a failed policy approach. HELLO NUANCE, GOODBYE LOGIC!
THE WORLD TEST
John Kerry said that before America took any military action, it should past the “world test”. Like Bush, my response was…WHAT?
KERRY: Hello France, yeah it’s me John. Hey listen we were thinking about invading Iraq…is that okay with you guys?
FRANCE: Well if it’s okay with Germany, it’s okay with us.
KERRY: Hey Germany, can we invade Iraq?
GERMANY: Go ask France!
THE PROBLEM WITH LIES
John Kerry said he has never called Bush a liar. NOT TRUE! That’s the problem with lies. When you lie you have to remember all of them. You only have to remember one truth. Kerry has called Bush a liar on at least three occasions. That doesnt’ count all the “misled” and “deceived” references.
It’s easy to nitpick things said in a debate (and fun), but I enjoyed last nights debate and felt that a clear distinction was drawn between the two candidates on some issues, like North Korea, Iran and unilateral action. It is also more obvious than ever that Kerry is offering nothing more on Iraq beyond his promise to do exactly what George Bush is doing, only better.
I’m looking forward to the next debate.
Emory Says: October 1st, 2004 at 5:55 pm
I thought Kerry did an excellent job of dressing up his ideas. Bush missed several opportunities to go on the offensive, I think, in part because Bush was responding to past statements by Kerry instead of the holes that Kerry was leaving open on stage. For example, Senator Kerry said that Osama bin Laden was “in Afghanistan.”
Buff Says: October 1st, 2004 at 10:46 pm
Kerry sure seems to be hung up on this whole “last resort” in taking military action. I think we did that before. Anyone remember 9/11? Maybe if we would have went after him before 9/11 would have been prevented. Perhaps Kerry doesn’t understand that, I dunno. Does Kerry want us to wait until we get nuked before we go after our enemies……maybe have a few hundred casualties before we goto war.
zack Says: October 2nd, 2004 at 12:24 am
Yes, Kerry’s “I taste Better” should be “Less Filling” Did anyone catch ANY of the four points in Kerry’s plan for Iraq? Emory: Right on target! Kerry insists on taking on North Korea alone…HELLO?? I wish Bush would say that he intends to open talks with N. Korea by himself just to watch Kerry flip-flop one more time. Kerry kindda had a chip on his shoulder about the flip-flop thing. “I have ONE POSITION ON IRAQ, I’VE ALWAYS HAD ONE POSITION…per day.
Anonymous Says: October 2nd, 2004 at 2:43 am
I watched the debate, and acttually he didn’t have a flip-flop…he had at least five.(I counted)
bob Says: October 3rd, 2004 at 2:02 am
Emory: At least he knows bin Laden isn’t in Iraq. Do you really want Bush to “practice his lovin” on you or your mother?
Buff: No, he wants to attack people who really are a threat, not a contained dicatator, who was Regean’s buddy back in the *80’s. Why isn’t bush attacking Saudi Arabia? That’s where the people who flew the planes came from. The reason Kerry voted against one version of the 87 mil spending bill is because he, and Mcain and others, were trying to get the rich to pay something for the war, since they don’t send their children over to die like the working class does. You chikenhawk draftdodgers are a joke.
bob Says: October 3rd, 2004 at 10:34 pm
Hey chickenhawk draftdodgers, where’d you go? I guess you all ran down to the recruiting station to volunteer for bush’s southern baptist jihad.
hey Buck, Kerry’s position has nuance, i guess that’s where yer confused. His “pass the global test” comment for instance doesn’t mean he’ll wait for a permission slip from “france” it means that he would have gone into Afghanistan like bush did because it met the global test that civilized countries would have done the same thing. I guess you didn’t get that because you’re used to being spoon fed the same lame bumpersticker logic over and over and over by bush et. al. Face it bush pussed out when he sent in the B team in torabora. So, he overcompensates in Iraq. What he woud do differently in Iraq is cancel all the payback contracts that are filling his croney’s pockets with our tax dollars (since the rich don’t pay taxes anymore) then, he’d bring in the rest of the world, including muslim countries in a real coalition, unlike the the British, with 5000 and dwindling troops, the tobago contingint of 12, the poles with 100 etc. Then he’ll get the UN in there and get us out. I’m wondering when bush is going to introduce accountablility back into the White House? He’s screwed up everything about Iraq. I guess it’s up to the voters to hold boy george accountable.
cw Says: October 4th, 2004 at 6:06 pm
Buff: I just don’t get this logic. Everyone agrees that it is necessary and just to preempt a threat. Taking out Bin Laden before 9/11 would have made sense (Clinton even tried albeit unconvincingly.) You conservatives seem to be brainwashed by the neo-cons that Iraq was a threat….like something out of 1984. Iraq was no threat to the US. They had no weapons, and even if they did, they had no means of delivery. They also had nothing to pass onto terrorists. Nothing. There was nothing to preempt. Talk about flip-flop. The Bushies flip-flopped their reasons for war with Iraq three times……first WMD, then nonsense Al-Qaeda linkage, then the ‘bad man’ reason. You guys are in a fog.
vince Says: October 4th, 2004 at 7:28 pm
I AM BEGGING AND PLEADING FOR ANY KERRY SUPPORTER TO PLEASE POINT OUT SOMETHING, SOMEWHERE THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT KERRY PLANS TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN GEORGE BUSH!
You asked for it, here’s my take:
Bush got us into this Iraq mess, but it is in every country’s interest that the mess be fixed and cleaned up properly. Right? It’s like the village idiot dropped a cat into the well from which everyone gets their water. Sure, its the idiot’s fault and everyone can stand on the sidelines and let the idiot try to solve the problem himself, dropping in other animals to try to get the cat out. But ultimately it is in everyone’s interest to have clean drinking water – so all nations in the region should do everything they can to get the idiot out of the way and clean out the well….”
bob Says: October 4th, 2004 at 8:15 pm
Yeah, what vince said. And to add on a thought, what Kerry would do is look a given situation as it is, not as his ideology or handlers say is should be and he would act based on the facts as they are. Bush has gotten so much wrong so consitantly, that even if all Kerry did was ask himself, “what would Bush do?’ and then do the opposite he’d get an awful lot right. Bush’s last term as president is going pretty much like every other period in his life: get somewhere based on his name and family connections, (Andover, Yale, Nat. Guard, Harvard, the Oil Bidness, baseball, Texas gov.) and then screw up and wait for someone else to come along and fix it, usually mommy or daddy.
cw Says: October 4th, 2004 at 8:40 pm
….and to add to the comments above: The world at large hates George W. Bush. By simply replacing him we’ve taken a step at getting back our credibility. The Europeans don’t want to negotiate with him. Even if Kerry has the same Iraq plan, he is much more effective because he is not the arrogant President who has alienated our allies. This is not to mention the hate he’s inspired from our enemies.
mel Says: October 4th, 2004 at 8:48 pm
Kerry never proposed we go it alone with Korea– other countries involved in the talks with Korea are also involved in bilateral talks, and China even asked us if we would consider bilateral talks as well. Kerry specifically said during the debate that we should do both. Just because Bush doesn’t want to, doesn’t mean it can’t be done successfully.
bob Says: October 4th, 2004 at 8:59 pm
Do conservatives post here anymore? Maybe we could rename the site “laugh with liberals” and the logo could be an elephant taking his ball and going home, muttering “i knew bin laden attacked america, I knew that…
zack Says: October 4th, 2004 at 10:07 pm
Bush/Cheney in 04, Let’s beat Kerry like we beat Gore! I hope it’s by 1 vote. Won’t that be fun?
bob Says: October 4th, 2004 at 10:10 pm
“Let’s beat Kerry like we beat Gore!” you guys won by one vote last year, 5 to 4! Go Enron/Halliburton!
ChapMan Says: October 4th, 2004 at 10:17 pm
Vince, thank you for explaining Kerry’s nuanced position on Iraq: Bush is stupid! For months now I’ve also wondered exactly what Kerry’s plans were to build upon the economic growth we’ve seen over the last year. Now I understand: Bush is stupid! What would Kerry do to fix the Social Security system? Bush is stupid! How will Kerry handle healthcare? Bush is stupid! It’s too bad Jim Leherer only pitched softballs to Kerry during the debate. A simple three-word answer would have made it clear to everyone exactly what sort of president John F. Kerry would make: Bush is stupid!
bob Says: October 4th, 2004 at 10:29 pm
ChapMan, learn to read dude, Kerry’s solution to IRAQ is bush is stupid. His solution to the social security mess, is to repeal the tax cut bush gave himself and Kerry and cheney and teresa and try to stem the flow of patriotic companys that move overseas to avoid taxes while earning millions on pentagon contracts. He wouldn’t cut off the benefits to the existing SS recipients by allowing people to “invest” money in a scheme to put more money in wall street conmen’s pockets. He’d try to actually create some jobs rather than e the 5 millionhat bush has misplaced, and he’d make them real jobs.
JD Says: October 4th, 2004 at 10:54 pm
You see, little b bob, conservatives, unlike liberals, don’t talk unless they have something worth saying.
JD Says: October 4th, 2004 at 10:57 pm
Oh yeah and that military industrial complex crap went out with pet rocks. Get some real arguments that are thought out will you.
ChapMan Says: October 4th, 2004 at 11:07 pm
CW, I’m no fan of France, but I don’t think their government is dumb enough to make decisions regarding international policy on the basis of the personality of the President of the United States. Did it ever occur to you that they may have other reasons for not joining the coalition in Iraq? Perhaps they are concerned about the reaction of the huge Muslim underclass living in their country. France, Germany, Russia, and the rest of the nations on the planet are going to act in what they consider to be their own self interests without regard to who sits in the Oval Office in Washington. It amazes me how Kerry and his supports fail to see the hypocrisy of their pronouncements on international politics. You slag our coalition allies as being “bribed and coerced.” You accused the French, Germans, and Russians of behaving like grade school children who are more concerned with our President’s swagger than the policies he has undertaken. Then you attack Bush for being arrogant and disrespectful toward the world. I think you and Kerry need to give the French and the rest of the world a little more credit.
Breezy Says: October 4th, 2004 at 11:09 pm
I’m sure this won’t get responded since the thread is slightly dated, but here it goes..
(7) Hind site is 20-20. I think Bush viewed it as a security threat to our allies, the security in the region, and to our interests in the region.
Saddam didn’t exactly have a good track record on the whole thing (invaded Kuwait, attacked his own people with chemical weapons)
(8) The problem with this, is that the US has saught help in the past with minimal results. As quoted the US is still providing the majority of the miltary. So in this respect, we are trying to fix the problem. But you could very well say that other countries reluctants to help only causes more people to die (Iraqis, US, nationals from other countries working, etc). It seems kind of heartless for them not to work towards a common good – peace in Iraq.
(9) Hind site is 20-20. Can you say that at a given moment in the past that you, Kerry or anyone else wouldn’t have made the same decisions based on the evidence at hand? At any given moments the facts change. At the time Bush decided to go in to Iraq, the evidence he and the rest of congress had, pointed in favor of doing exactly what we did.
The Bush crew adapts. They see a problem in a given situation and try to make it better. They see that security is becoming a situation, so they reallocate money originally intended for reconstruction to reconstructing the security in the region. There is a lot of money ready to be spent but oversite and buracracy delays it as well.
I admit, he doesn’t like to admit he’s wrong but then again he tries to avoid going back and forth all the time. He also tries to not make an uninformed decision off the cup (you can say what you like, but I think it’s better to not make a decision until you have more details then just to answer whatever way will get you points with the group your talking to).
As a governor, he won twice before turning to the presidency. As governor,
“Tax cuts for school property taxes, consumer sales taxes, and business taxes are some of the accomplishments claimed by Governor Bush. Coupled with a low unemployment rate, and new business growth, the overall economy for Texas looks rosy.”
(10) The case could be made that the other countries have allientated the US and the UN as a whole. With 17 UN resolutions going against Iraq, at what point do they take the plung and remedy it with force?
(11) I guess that depends if you mean bilateral as being between two parties or two sides. The case could be made that bilateral means North Korea on one side and everyone else on the other or just between the US and Korea. If we did it just by ourselves, that would go against Kerry saying we never work with other countries. If we did it with other countries, then we are working with other countries which goes against Kerry’s statement about Bush failing to build coalitions.
My stating that China even asked for bilateral, since they are already part of the Asian Penisula coalition in talks at the moment, that implies it would be one on one which doesn’t seem 100% reasonable.
(12) Maybe conservatives have moved on to other topics..
JD Says: October 4th, 2004 at 11:21 pm
Right Chapman but the liberals do see their hypocrisy, they just don’t care. It is not about the truth it is about winning. Kerry wants a co-alition in Iraq, doesn’t want one in North Korea, doesn’t want one to fight at Tora Bora and insults the ones we do have.
bob Says: October 4th, 2004 at 11:26 pm
jd, I assume your jab at the military industrial complex is in reference to enron/halliburton? If it went out with pet rocks, it’s back. enron fixed the energy market and almost bankrupted an entire state, and is getting off with some wrist slaps. a couple of years in a country club, some fines that don’t nearly equal what they stole because they own bush. Halliburton owns cheney, he’s still on the payroll, they’re gouging the middle class taxpayers and people like you don’t care. If it was clinton/ gore or kerry/edwards with those shady connections you hypocrites would be howling like rabid dogs about it. and talk about nothing to say, your boy had 4 lines memorized for the debate last week, “it’s hard work” “my opponent says wrong war wrong place, wrong time” “sends wrong message to the coalition” sends wrong message to the troops” . your boys and idiot.
JD Says: October 4th, 2004 at 11:38 pm
bob what is the connection with Enron? And if you don’t think bankruptcy, and jail time is enough, what is? As far as Hallibuton goes do some homework. Pre billing based on estimates is normal procedure. So are audits after they know how much service was provided. There is nothing unusual with what went on in Iraq. That was liberl hype. Cheney has a pension with Halliburton. Wow. The problem with you liberals is you believe your own rhetoric afterwhile and it is ignorant.
JD Says: October 4th, 2004 at 11:43 pm
I do agree Bush did poorly in the debate. He is not the most articulate guy around. Fortunately he has the things that matter, like character, sincerity, and principles. They matter to conservatives that is.
bob Says: October 4th, 2004 at 11:55 pm
The connection with enron is two-fold. the jailtime Ken Lay may get is minimal. If you rob the local 7-11 you’ll spend more time in jail. He scammed hundreds of millions of dollars. bankrupted the pension fund of his own company, almost bankrupted california, and he’s not broke, by a long shot. He is tight with Bush. He financed bush. bush took dirty money. Ken Lay gets treated with kid gloves by bushes attorney general and sec. But you see no problem because? Halliburton. Halliburton hires cheney after the big C gives them huge military contracts as secretary of defense. cheney gives them a 7 billion, no bid, contract when Gulf 2 happens and they have been caught several times overcharging, inflating costs, etc. I used to work for a contractor that did defense work. We were small potatoes, but the process is the same. the contracts we had were time and material too, just like the ones that Halliburton has going now in Iraq. They get a garunteed percent of the cost so they run up the cost. They send over truckdrivers and pay them 100G because that pays them more than if they pay the 50 G. This war is nothing but a boondoggle for Cheney. Cheney, in addition to a multimillion dollar pension for 8 years work, also has stock options on millions of shares that will pay off nicely now that he’s increased the profit margin for his old company. what’s ignorant is that conservatives refuse to see that the bush/cheney ticket has put the con in conservative.
JD Says: October 5th, 2004 at 12:08 am
Ok bob let’s take them one at a time. Enron gave money to both parties, not just Republicans. The Enron scandal was an internal accounting type designed to inflate it’s stock price. It had nothing to do with oil or even trading in energy markets. As for Hallibuton you are completely wrong that Cheney has stock options. When he became Vice President he divested himself of all securities, just like all presidents and vice presidents do to avoid any impressions of impropriety. This would include options. And besides if you are following Halliburtons stock price (which I did own at one time) you would know that any options granted four years ago would now be worthless.
JD Says: October 5th, 2004 at 12:14 am
Oh and since you worked in the industry you should know that Halliburton is an oil services company. Their customers are mainly oil companies and drillers. They are not the big beneficiaries of military contracts and I don’t believe they even got the lions share of rebuilding Kuwaiti oil fields.
bob Says: October 5th, 2004 at 12:32 am
JD
are disputing the fact that Halliburton has a 7Billion dollar contract to supply services to the military in Iraq? your not beliveing something doesn’t make so. Enron gave the lions share of it money to the repubs in general and bush in particular. I don’t know much about stock options, since I’m a working man, or was before going back to school, but according to what I’ve read in the mainstream press, (not liberal, but corporate) he has a lot of money waiting for him when he cashes in. No he didn’t divest, he put his portfolio in a blind trust, like everyone else does, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t know what side is of his bread has the butter. Enron was a two-fold scandal: there was the off shore corporation scam to inflate stock, and there was the manipualtion of power availability to inflate the price of energy. yes. dening it won’t change the facts because you’re not president, yet. when you are you can stick your fingers in your ears and hum until the people saying the bad things go away. about bush’s character, sincerety and principals:
if he had character, he wouldn’t have lied to get us to go to war in Iraq. If he was lied to, he would have fired those who lied to him, if he had character. his only principal is the principal if taking care of his inner circle of friends first. and my dog is sincere, I don’t think that qualifies him to be president. Bush in not inarticulate, he’s incapable of introspection and crtitical thought.
JD Says: October 5th, 2004 at 12:41 am
Not disputing the contract, bob. Only trying to point out it is ridiculous to tie it Cheney. Fact is Halliburton is one of the few companies big enough to do the job. There is tremedous oversite on what is going on and Cheney has nothing to gain, your bogus claims of options notwithstanding. Character does matter, always has. Same intelligence as Clinton, etal and not accurate but not a lie. You only wish it was so.
JD Says: October 5th, 2004 at 12:43 am
bob please explain why you think Bush is not capable of critical thought.
bob Says: October 5th, 2004 at 12:47 am
right, character does matter, bush doesn’t have it. He has the pose of character. but he is a liar. a bigger liar than clinton ever dreamed of being. and the fact is that halliburton is doing the job that the milatary used to do for itself, for a lot less than it is currently costing us. cheney, halliburton=quid pro quo. Why is it rediculous to tie it to cheney? and if there are a few companies that can do the job, why not an open bidding process? you still haven’t responde to the deceptions that the bush adminsitation has foisted on us. Bush is a con man. he is bankrupting this country. finanically and morally.
JD Says: October 5th, 2004 at 12:49 am
What deceptions?
ChapMan Says: October 5th, 2004 at 1:35 am
Bob, your logic is impeccable. First you deduce that my comments prove my illiteracy, and then you go on to agree with my conclusions. You conclude that social security taxes, which Bush didn’t cut, are the same as income taxes, which Bush did cut. You assert that cutting tax rates causes companies to move overseas. By inference, if we could just raise taxes high enough, more companies would move their operations to the United States. Allowing workers to have control over their own retirement money is something you equate to a con job. On the other hand, having a government-controlled bureaucracy confiscate the money in exchange for a lock box (to borrow Mr. Gore’s phrase) full of IOU’s seems to you like a sound financial alternative. Wow. I’m just not up to the task of arguing with you, Bob. But then, I visited this sight to laugh at you. Thank you for providing ample fodder.
JD Says: October 5th, 2004 at 1:49 am
It does seem bob is hostage of his own vitriol, as are most liberals these days.
ChapMan Says: October 5th, 2004 at 1:54 am
JD, perhaps Bob enjoys hearing his keyboard clack as much as Kerry enjoys the sound of his own voice. The content is equally inane.
bob Says: October 5th, 2004 at 2:22 am
to JD and ChapMan,
Boys,boys, boys, I’m glad I was able to bring a little sunshine into your life Chappy, I’m enjoying your drivell as well. Let companies move overseas, let them move everything though, but don’t let them take tax dollars with them. social security would be fine if your congress and president would leave it alone. Bush wants to privatize social security, and we’ll be stuck the bill just like the privatized army.
Bush’s deceptions are too legion to list in total, but here’s a start. If any other liberals want to fill in the gaps, please feel free.
There are enough stem cell lines existing now for all the reseach.
his tax cuts willproduce 5 million jobs
the tax cuts won’t hurt the clinton budget surplus
the tax cuts are needed to keep the surplus down
the tax cuts are needed to turn the economy around
no one could have anticipated that they would fly a plane into a building. (they were briefed on this very scenario by Sandy Berger)
The reason bush couldn’t come straight home 911 because there was a plane flying around trying to crash into airforce 1
Osama bin Laden, dead or alive
Saddam was associated with 911
saddam has WMD
Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program
saddam has 500 tons of VX nerve gas
Saddam has unmanned drones that can hit the US
We can’t afford to let the smoking gun be a mushroomcloud
We will only invade as a last resort.
We will let the weapons inspectors do their job
jessica lynch fought to the end before being captured
jessica lynch was rescued in a daring, dangerous mission
mission accomplished
We will rebuild Afghanistan
Things will get better as soon as saddam is captured
things are getting better
we never authorized torture
Every Jon Ashcroft new conference in which he touts a terrorist arrest.
the medicare refrom bill will only cost 400 billion
importing prescription drugs from Canada is dangerous
all the various stories surounding his nat. guard time
bin laden wants kerry to win
bin laden will attack if kerry wins
there are more, but I’m tired. An easy way to remember the gist of this (and being conservatives I know you need short bumper sticker statements to get it) Clinton lie to eat the pie/bush lie people die
it was fun boys, JD does ChapMan wear his chaps bareback?
JD Says: October 5th, 2004 at 1:26 pm
Ok bob, after that incoherent diatribe I am tempted to say I rest my case but for fun I won’t. You are obviously a student of the Michael Moore school of rational thought but I will try one more and this is important. Embryonic stem cell research uses aborted fetuses. Although clearly against their use Bush did not ban this research. He only put a limit on the amount the government would spend on it. This is a very reasonable compromise. It amazes me that liberals would oppose using animals in medical research but have no problem with aborted fetuses.
bob Says: October 5th, 2004 at 2:20 pm
JD, you asked “what deceptions” I couldn’t list them all, but there are enough make the point, your opinion of how I expressed them notwithstanding. It’s iteresting that you choose to respond to only one, and you lie in your response. Stem cell research doesn’t use aborted fetuses: stem cell research uses leftover fertilized eggs from fertility clinics. eggs that will be thrown away. Not aborted fetuses, not unborn children. not vialable living creatures. If you want to argue about Michael Moore, why don’t you offer some concrete arguments instead of merely dismissing him out of hand. that works when you’re talking to like minded cons. But, if you want to talk about Farenhight 911 the only distortion of the truth in it is that Bush was listening “the pet goat” not “My pet goat”. everything else is true, you may not like it, but that doesn’t change the facts. In an earlier post you said bush has “character”. Everyone has character, some good, some bad. Why don’t you offer some examples of his good character. Here are some examples of his bad character; 1- He contiunes to lie about his national guard service. What he did 40 years ago isn’t relavant, but that fact that he can’t admit that he used his influence to get in and get out of his duty shows he is weak. 2- in the state of the union address when he talked about saddam trying to get yellowcake uranimun from Niger, he specifically quoted British intelligence after Tenet told him that US intell knew the documents were forgeries. He did this so if he was caught lying he could say that it was the brits, not him. He did this to his closest ally. What does that say about his character? 3-he has not attended one funereal of a solider who has died in Iraq. Regardless of whether you think the war was justified or not, this reflects poorly on him. He doesn’t want to be associated with flag draped caskets beacuse that may remind people that soldiers are dying. 4-he halted the journey of that aircraft carrier that he flew onto off the coast of CA so he could do his dramatic photo op in the flight suit and get the pic of him standing beneath the banner of “Mission Accomplished”. He delayed those sailors who had been away from home, in harms way, and who wanted to see their loved ones so he could get some video for his re-election campaign. 5-When it turned out that the mssion was not accomplished, he blamed those same sailors for hanging the banner, facutally true, but it was provided by the white house and they were told to put it up. Yeah, your boy has a lot of character. I’d list more, but you seem to have ADD and can’t respond if you get too much info. maybe that explains your conservative bent.
PS, aborted fetuses are dead animals are alive. duh. aminals are used for testing how much perfume burns when it gets in your eyes, fetuses are used for real research. Chimpanzes were used to test the saftey of Thalidamide (that’s probably misspelled, it was a drug used in fifies by pregnant moms to combat morning sickness, and created a generation of severely birth defected (yeah I know, bad verb) children.
ChapMan Says: October 5th, 2004 at 2:28 pm
Bob, could I please trouble you to explain how George Bush, dimwit that he supposedly is, manages to lie and deceive so adroitly without actually saying any of the things you attribute to him? You’ve obviously studied some video snippets in which the President communicates to you through Morse code eye blinks. Or perhaps that aluminum foil fez you wear allows you to tune into the same frequency on which Bush and Karl Rove communicate telepathically. But do, Bob, try to pick two or three items from your list and provide an example of when and where W really said them. Then we can discuss what the meaning of is is and other types of lies.
bob Says: October 5th, 2004 at 2:45 pm
Chapman, ad hominen attacks aside, what are you talking about? Are you denyiing that the reasons that we went to war in Iraq have changed? Are you saying that the administion, and when Condie or Rummy, or wolfie or cheney, make assertions about the need to invade another country, they are speaking for bushie, did not misreprensent the threat that Iraq posed to this country? Why don’t you offer some proof that bush did anything right in the last four years? and by the way, do you wear your chaps bareback?
bob Says: October 5th, 2004 at 2:48 pm
chapman, by the way where did I say bush is a dimwit? I dont think he’s a dimwit. he’s probably average intellegence, I don’t think he’s smart enough to be president, but most people aren’t, I’m not, you’re not.
ChapMan Says: October 5th, 2004 at 3:01 pm
Bob, stem cell research uses stem cells. The cells can come from a variety of sources including the recently promoted source of liposuction fat removed from adult humans. Embryonic stem cells, as the name implies, come from human embryos. Whether you want to refer to these embryos as people, children, fetuses, cell clumps, or little oopsies is beside the point. Whether you refer to the result of extracting the stem cells from the embryos as destruction, abortion, or murder is beside the point. Your original accusation was that George Bush lied by telling us “there are enough stem cell lines existing now for all the research.” Forgive me for correcting your spelling in the quote. The truth is there are more stem cells available from adults (who would be unharmed by their removal) to provide materials for research. The truth is there are enough stem cells available in discarded umbilical cords to provide materials for research. The truth is that there are currently more embryonic stem cells in the lines George Bush referred to in his proposal than there are research projects available to consume them. So even if Bush had said precisely what you attributed to him, it still wouldn’t be a lie.
There is no practical reason to object to the limitations President Bush has placed on embryonic stem cell research. His compromise interferes with no current research or anything planned for the foreseeable future. There are no limits on corporate sponsored research. I can conceive of only three reasons to attack his position: One, it did not go far enough to regulate a morally reprehensible activity. Two, the fear that placing any limits on slaughtering human embryos at any stage of development might somehow, somewhere, someday, stop some mother from having an abortion. And three, Bush is stupid, the standard liberal answer to any question.
ChapMan Says: October 5th, 2004 at 3:05 pm
Bob, please forgive me for accusing you of attacking George Bush’s intelligence by calling him a dimwit. Obviously you only attack his intelligence by saying that you don’t think he’s smart enough to be President. You know we conservatives sometimes miss those subtle nuances that come so naturally to you liberals.
ChapMan Says: October 5th, 2004 at 3:11 pm
Bob, sure, I’ll take that bait. The reasons we went to war in Iraq have not changed. And I stand ready to defend any comment made by the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense, or National Security Advisor regarding Iraq during the months leading up to the war. Please be specific when you provide quotes.
bob Says: October 5th, 2004 at 3:37 pm
Here are few, please be specific in your responses. no ad homimen attacks or smary asides in lieu of an honest response. While you’re at it, take a look at the the NY Times articles over the past few days concerning Ms, Rice’s knowledge of the flaws of her assertions concerning the uses of those aluminumn tubes.
“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003 “U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam
“Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical agents.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
“We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
“Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
“Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites.”
Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
“We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in.”
Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003
In the debate last Thursday with Kerry Bush said, “Diplomacy wouldn’t work, Saddam refused to disarm.” (This may not be an accurate quote, but it fairly reflects what he said) Saddam had nothing to disarm.
bob Says: October 5th, 2004 at 3:53 pm
Chapman, regarding 42- we have a difference opinion here on the issue. I don’t mind you correcting my spelling by the way, thanks for asking, I dn’t have the time to google this and find accurate sources that lend support to my side of the issue, but if you want offer support for yours I’ll be glad to read. However, abortion is a lot of things, but it is not morally rerehensible (feel free to correct that spelling if you want). it is, like a lot if things in life sometimes used in a morally rephrhensible manner. people who use as a form of birth control are morally reprhehenable. But they become infertile after a few abortions. It is a sad painful choice for most women who choose to use it. The three women I know who had abortions still feel grief around the time each year they would hav given birth. They were in difficult situations and made a difficult choice, It’s not a choice I would choose, but I don’t condem them.
JD Says: October 5th, 2004 at 5:00 pm
bob not a single case of where you state Bush lied is a lie. Each and everyone is backed by the information we or our allies had at the time. It may now have been proven to be wrong but it was not a lie at the time. You cannot keep claiming mistaken information is a lie and expect to be taken seriously. And you know I have to laugh. You liberals have been saying your too smart since Adali Stevenson ran for president. Amazing
ChapMan Says: October 5th, 2004 at 5:17 pm
Bob, I’ll respond to your other comments later today, possibly in the thread started by Buck’s new article. But I just have to take a moment to observe that after making a joke about my name, you accuse me of ad hominem attacks. Then you trot out the same lame joke at the end of the paragraph. Is this what liberals consider recycling?
bob Says: October 5th, 2004 at 5:29 pm
47: Bush used Brit intel on yellowcake preciecly becuase he knew that the information was wrong. if you don’t believe it go back and look it up. Condi Rice had credible information that the aluminum tubes that were intercepted were not usable for a centirfuge at the time she made that assertion. if you don’t believe it then take a look at the last two days of the NYtimes. They are either liars or they have incomptents on their staffs. since no one has been fired, I’m going with liars.
bob Says: October 5th, 2004 at 5:32 pm
ChapMan,
busted. you’re right it is a lame joke, I was just taking a shot in the dark that you were homophobic. But as long as we’re on the subject of your name, are you the guy who shot John Lennon?
JD Says: October 5th, 2004 at 6:18 pm
Ok bob you win. You are incorrigible and have worn me down. Do you like Kerry?
bob Says: October 5th, 2004 at 6:41 pm
Jd, why quit now, you almost converted me.would I have to give up my gratful dead albums? Do I like Kerry? knee jerk reaction, Of course, everything he does, everything he says and every position he takes is perfect. The Truth: I left the democratic party when he voted to authorize the war. I thought he did it for political reasons so it couldn’t be used against him in this election, and, it’s a secert pleasure to watch him try to squirm out of it. However, i will vote for him in Nov. I do believe that he is capable of dealing with the mess in which we find ourselves.
JD Says: October 5th, 2004 at 6:49 pm
bob, what makes Kerry so capable?
ChapMan Says: October 5th, 2004 at 6:50 pm
Oh yeah, Bob, I have a big homophobia problem. It all started several years ago when I was in a gay bar with three of my gay buddies. I was there for a couple of hours and not one dude hit on me. So, yes, I admit, I fear any group of folks with such poor taste.
bob Says: October 5th, 2004 at 7:06 pm
Oh ChapMan, I’m so sorry, so when you were sitting at the bar no one asked if he could push up your stool?
bob Says: October 5th, 2004 at 7:17 pm
jd,
i don’t know what makes Kerry capable, he went to yale? No, that hasn’t worked lately…As you probably can guess, I don’t think bush is capable so I’m hoping the alternative will be better, i wish I had a better choice. after 2000 i swore I’d never vote against someone again. I didn’t gore but I was stuck. i might have voted for MCain but that wasn’t a choice. I didn’t want to vote for clinton the second time but I didn’t want bush. I didn’t want dukakus, or Mondale. I’ve been voting since 76 and I’ve made an informed vote for someone twice, Carter in 80, Clinton in 92. I don’t count 76 because I was 18 and voted because my mother made me. I wish we could vote for “none of the above” If we had that option I think we’d get better cantidates and better campaigns. Thanks for asking. Are you playing good cop today
JD Says: October 5th, 2004 at 7:18 pm
bob: Just trying to make a point
ChapMan Says: October 5th, 2004 at 8:05 pm
Bob, now I’m laughing with you, not at you. I’ll get back to laughing at you later.
ChapMan Says: October 7th, 2004 at 4:02 am
Bob, I am tempted to dismiss your collection of quotes as obviously true to anyone who has been paying attention. I don’t want to waste too much time on the lost cause of trying to refocus your attention on reality. But I did decide to spend ten minutes searching for a fact or two to throw your way. A few of your quotes refer to statistics pulled from intelligence available at the time. You have indicated elsewhere that you believe either Bush is making this stuff up completely or he should have fired the people who provided him this supposedly false information. So rather than rely on such tainted (in your eyes) sources as our own National Security Agency, CIA, Defense Department, etc., I will use the information provided by the United Nations regarding Iraq’s weapons. In 1998 their list included 4000 tons of materials used to produce various poison gases, over 100,000 casings for chemical weapons, 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum), and more. Does this make Kofi Annan a liar too? How ’bout the Russians, Germans, and the other world governments who provided intelligence regarding Sadam’s weapons and programs? Were they all lying?
Here’s a quote for you regarding the unmanned aerial vehicles you brought up. This is from George Tenet’s speech at Georgetown University, February 5, 2004. “The Iraq Survey Group found that two separate groups in Iraq were working on a number of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle designs that were hidden from the UN until Iraq’s Declaration of December 2002. …Iraqis flight-tested an aerial Biological Weapon spray system intended for a large Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. A senior Iraqi official has now admitted that their two large Unmanned Aerial Vehicles—one developed in the early 90s and the other under development in late 2000—were intended for delivery of biological weapons.”
For an exploration of the links between Al Quaida and Iraq, I direct you to the work of Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard. His bulleted points demonstrating those links can be found on the weeklystandard.com website by clicking “Search” and entering “Hayes” in the author search box and then selecting the “Inconvenient Facts” article.
Oh, darn, I’ve already passed the ten minutes I was planning to spend on this. Your remaining quotes are no more difficult to defend. But I’ll leave them for some of our other buddies to thump about. Catch you on the next thread.
Serbian National Says: October 7th, 2004 at 11:34 pm
I just liked it when bob cited the New York Times as one of his sources.. because we all know that’s a reliable and unbiased source.
Dont Matter Just Browsing Says: April 13th, 2005 at 5:26 pm
1984 George Orwell (redefining words, Newspeak)
Definitions
Liberal:::
1. broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; “a broad political stance”; “generous and broad sympathies”; “a liberal newspaper”; “tolerant of his opponent’s opinions”
2. having political or social views favoring reform and progress
3. tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
4. a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
5. big: given or giving freely; “was a big tipper”; “the bounteous goodness of God”; “bountiful compliments”; “a freehanded host”; “a handsome allowance”; “Saturday’s child is loving and giving”; “a liberal backer of the arts”; “a munificent gift”; “her fond and openhanded grandfather”
6. a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
7. free: not literal; “a loose interpretation of what she had been told”; “a free translation of the poem”
8. Political view that supports gradual change and government spending to assist lower classes in society.
Synonyms: advanced, avant-garde, big, broad, broad-minded, catholic, detached, disinterested, dispassionate, enlightened, flexible, free, general, high-minded, humanistic, humanitarian, impartial, indulgent, inexact, intelligent, interested, latitudinarian, left, lenient, libertarian, loose, magnanimous, not close, not literal, not strict, permissive, pink, radical, rational, reasonable, receiving, receptive, reformist, tolerant, unbiased, unbigoted, unconventional, understanding, unorthodox, unprejudiced
Conservative:::
1. Resistant to change.
2. Opposed to liberal reforms.
3. Avoiding excess; “a conservative estimate”.
4. Unimaginatively conventional; “a colorful character in the buttoned-down, dull-gray world of business”- Newsweek.
5. Conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; “a bourgeois mentality”.
Synonyms:
bourgeois, cautious, constant, controlled, conventional, die-hard, fearful, firm, fogyish, fuddy-duddy, guarded, hard hat, hidebound, holding to, illiberal, inflexible, middle-of-the-road, not extreme, obstinate, old guard, old-line, orthodox, quiet, red-neck, right, right-wing, sober, stable, steady, timid, traditional, traditionalistic, unchangeable, unchanging, uncreative, undaring, unimaginative, unprogressive, white bread
So how does the word liberal become a bad term and used in phrases such as “Worthless Liberal” and “You such a Liberal”
Funny how life immitates art, eh.
Paul Says: April 13th, 2005 at 11:35 pm
Mr. “Dont Matter Just Browsing” I personally am so glad you brought this subject up. You are probably just trolling and wont be back to read this but in case you do….
Liberal was originally a nuetral word just as gay was originally a nuetral word. It was just a description, usually applied to someone who was giving, kind, and free-spirited, as in “he was a very liberal person.”
Somewhere along the way the socialist left hijacked this word. Liberal actually had good connotations and why not. Who wouldnt want to be labeled as progressive. I see myself as progressive. It’s progress to have a real space program. Its progress to have a viable environmental policy. Its progress to want see everyone get as rich as they can. But anyway, I digress.
But the socialist, who were only a few steps above communists (and yes I do know about both government systems) needed a means to look good to Average Joe American. They also needed to convince themselves that the goals they embraced were not just good but progressive. So they hi-jacked the word Liberal to take advantage of the word’s good connotations.
Now Liberal is not a good label, not because the concept of a giving, tolerant, and progressive person is not good, but because those who have hijacked the word are none of the above but try to convince everyone they are.
Socialist/Democrats try to tell you they are progressive, but they are trying to institute a government which effectively will take us back to the days of fuedalism except that the rulers are not “Duke” or “Baron”, but instead instead “Senator” or “Representative” or worse yet, “Vice President of Government Dispursement”.
Where is the logic in that you ask? Simple. Any representative democracy which puts people on a dole can then scare those same people into voting for them to keep them on the dole (see “Social Security” which is socialist but not secure). Thus they can retain power indefinately. And turn it into a hereditary system.
Socialist/Democrats try to tell everyone they are giving, and of all the terms this is the most accurate, but only if the “giving” keeps them in power.
Socialist/Democrates also try to tell everyone they are tolerant but they really aren’t. True tolerance is an all or nothing proposition. True tolerance requires you to respect ALL viewpoints, which most of us are incapable of doing. The minute you call someone intolerant, you are immediately labeling yourself the same because what you are really saying is that you do not respect that person’s viewpoint. Even though the Democratic Party was initially a party with christians in it, it is now a party which is anti-christian and proud of it. According to prominent Democrats, we are “ignorant”, “scary”, “stupid” and “shouldn’t have the right to vote”. Is that tolerance? As one prominent Democrat put it, “tolerant of all but intolerance.” Put a different way that means “tolerant of anybody who doesn’t disagree with us.”
Now who pray tell me is guilty of “Orwellianism”. And dont even get me started on politically correct speech as that is true orwellianism. Matter of fact if you read 1984 you realize that the reason the words meanings were changed around was for the purpose of gaining and holding power. Hmm. Also read Animal Farm, that also might prove to be enlightening.
Freddie Says: September 29th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
Can you beleive the votes against John Roberts. It is so unbelievable. They are so trying to destroy america that they can’t see right from wrong.