Economic Girly Men

[John Uskglass]

CCR- member of the George Bush for God campaign.

Yeah. Massive defecits and a possible quagmire in Iraq.....he's a real Teddy Roosevelt.

It's a battle of relatives, you know that.

Chris Matthew said it clearly- if you want to vote for a guy who supports tax breaks for the rich, who supports the division of society, and who acts internationally without thinking about it- vote Bush.

 

[welsh]

Things is CCR- you got a president who says one thing, lies, gets caught, does it again.

Then he slams people for their service records in Vietnam when he never went there?

(We can ignore the cocaine and alcohol issues)

How can you trust this guy?

Oh and how about that recent comment "We can't win the war against terrorism." thing.

Is that not called being a flip-flopper?

 

[John Uskglass]

Things is CCR- you got a president who says one thing, lies, gets caught, does it again.

Kerry is the Olympic God of flipflopping.

Then he slams people for their service records in Vietnam when he never went there?

Sure are good at inventing thing's Bush never said. He might have critiscized what he did after the war, but said himself that Kerry's service was more honorable.

How can you trust this guy?

Because Kerry is the opposition.

Oh and how about that recent comment "We can't win the war against terrorism." thing.

Unscriptied screw up corrected on the spot. He's not the smartest guy in the world, but then again, alot of great presidents are'nt Rhode scollars.

 

[welsh]

Things is CCR- you got a president who says one thing, lies, gets caught, does it again.

Kerry is the Olympic God of flipflopping.

Thing is Kerry spent most of his career as a watchdog on the executive, not in bill writing.

And it's often the Congress, working in part with the GAO that keeps the Executive honest.

Then he slams people for their service records in Vietnam when he never went there?

Sure are good at inventing thing's Bush never said. He might have critiscized what he did after the war, but said himself that Kerry's service was more honorable.

You really don't think that Bush is innocent in this do you? Publically he can look the good guy while he's buddies to the smear campaign. Both sides are guilty in this- allowing other guys to play the nasty politics while keeping their hands clean. But the Swift Boat Guys are pretty closely tied to Bush.

How can you trust this guy?

Because Kerry is the opposition.

Because Kerry went to war? Because he actually stood by his convictions after the war?

YOu make Kerry sound like the anti-christ. Yet it's Bush that is spending billions of dollars on a war that is going to big companies? It was Bush that dropped the Ball on terrorism before 9-11? Bush is cutting social funding to education while giving tax breaks to the rich.

Oh and how about that recent comment "We can't win the war against terrorism." thing.

Unscriptied screw up corrected on the spot. He's not the smartest guy in the world, but then again, alot of great presidents are'nt Rhode scollars.

Actually I thought this was one of the few smart things he said. As Moore was saying, you can't really go to war against a noun. The best you can do is to dissuade countries from supporting terrorists or stop terrorists before they strike. But I doubt you can ever stop terrorism. As long as a person has a means to terrorize, they will.

In this the Democrats have to be very careful not to overplay that hand. Bush's mistake was that he backed himself into a corner in the "war against terrorism" stuff. But maybe that's why you need a Rhodes Scholar to prevent you from doing stupid shit- like going to war with the wrong country. Of course that requires thoughtful consideration and some hesitation, a bit more than faith in God and stubborn and strong resolve.

Hey the guy wanted to be a war president- and he got it. THe problem is that he got to be a war president without understanding the consequences of war because he was too chickenshit to find out for himself.

 

[Sovz]

CCR you sould take a look in here http://www.ericblumrich.com/PD.html

 

[John Uskglass]

Thing is Kerry spent most of his career as a watchdog on the executive, not in bill writing.

And it's often the Congress, working in part with the GAO that keeps the Executive honest.

Yeah, he also spent his time
A) Avoiding all things involved to terrorism during his years in the senate
B) Going against EVERY SINGLE BILL to increase military spending
C) Making up war crimes so he can get into the senate
D) Almost loosing his 20 year old senate seat to a newbie Congressman
E) Talking about how we can't defeat the USSR.

You really don't think that Bush is innocent in this do you? Publically he can look the good guy while he's buddies to the smear campaign. Both sides are guilty in this- allowing other guys to play the nasty politics while keeping their hands clean. But the Swift Boat Guys are pretty closely tied to Bush.

By that same definition Kerry is responsible for the Moveon.com adds that portray Bush as Hitler, and Fullofshit 9/11.

Because Kerry went to war? Because he actually stood by his convictions after the war?

Yeah. He sure stood by them when he figured out playing Jane Fonda on acid got him a senate seat. Umphm, sure.

YOu make Kerry sound like the anti-christ. Yet it's Bush that is spending billions of dollars on a war that is going to big companies? It was Bush that dropped the Ball on terrorism before 9-11? Bush is cutting social funding to education while giving tax breaks to the rich.

Going to big companies? Come on Welsh, you don't actually belive that! It's insulting! Haliburton ALONE has lost as many people in Iraq as any country outside of USA/UK. Not to mention why the FUCK it was about wepons if the Paladin Artillery peice was cancelled?

Actually I thought this was one of the few smart things he said. As Moore was saying, you can't really go to war against a noun. The best you can do is to dissuade countries from supporting terrorists or stop terrorists before they strike. But I doubt you can ever stop terrorism. As long as a person has a means to terrorize, they will.

Italy beat the Red Brigade. Moore was just being a ghrammar Nazi. Islamic Fundementalism will wane, and we will win, or it will begin infecting western europe, and we will loose. Simple.

In this the Democrats have to be very careful not to overplay that hand. Bush's mistake was that he backed himself into a corner in the "war against terrorism" stuff. But maybe that's why you need a Rhodes Scholar to prevent you from doing stupid shit- like going to war with the wrong country. Of course that requires thoughtful consideration and some hesitation, a bit more than faith in God and stubborn and strong resolve.

Bush is'nt an idiot, at least not in the traditional sense. He might have gotten into Yale on Nepotic grounds, but he did'nt flunk out. He's not as intellegent as Clinton, then again he's in alot of ways a more effective president.

Hey the guy wanted to be a war president- and he got it. THe problem is that he got to be a war president without understanding the consequences of war because he was too chickenshit to find out for himself.

Puh-lease. He did'nt want to be a war president. If Gore was president on 9/11, he would have been a War President.

CCR you sould take a look in here http://www.ericblumrich.com/PD.html

Whatever you say Kashuluk II: The Return.

 

[Sovz]

Whatever you say Kashuluk II: The Return.

care to explain?

 

[John Uskglass]

Kashuluk was/is a left leaning Finnish guy on DAC, approximately my age. My nemesis, yet we have alot in common, like Christanity and age and such.....think a Lutheran Finnish Sander. With stupid taste in music.

 

[welsh]

Remember just because the president lies and doesn't read doesn't mean you're excused. CCR- don't let your emotions get the better of your ethics and responibility. Don't lie. It makes you look foolish and reckless.

Yeah, he also spent his time
A) Avoiding all things involved to terrorism during his years in the senate
B) Going against EVERY SINGLE BILL to increase military spending

Ok, here's where not doing your homework makes you look foolish.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040225-defense-kerry.htm

Slate February 25, 2004

John Kerry's Defense Defense
Setting his voting record straight
By Fred Kaplan

Before George W. Bush's political operatives started pounding on John Kerry for voting against certain weapons systems during his years in the Senate, they should have taken a look at this quotation:

After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office.

The speaker was President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992.

They should also have looked up some testimony by Dick Cheney, the first President Bush's secretary of defense (and now vice president), three days later, boasting of similar slashings before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend.

Cheney proceeded to lay into the then-Democratically controlled Congress for refusing to cut more weapons systems.

Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them.

The Republican operatives might also have noticed Gen. Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same hearings, testifying about plans to cut Army divisions by one-third, Navy aircraft carriers by one-fifth, and active armed forces by half a million men and women, to say noting of "major reductions" in fighter wings and strategic bombers.

Granted, these reductions were made in the wake of the Soviet Union's dissolution and the Cold War's demise. But that's just the point: Proposed cuts must be examined in context. A vote against a particular weapons system doesn't necessarily indicate indifference toward national defense.

Looking at the weapons that the RNC says Kerry voted to cut, a good case could be made, certainly at the time, that some of them (the B-2 bomber and President Reagan's "Star Wars" missile-defense program) should have been cut. As for the others (the M-1 tank and the F-14, F-15, and F-16 fighter planes, among others), Kerry didn't really vote to cut them.

The claim about these votes was made in the Republican National Committee "Research Briefing" of Feb. 22. The report lists 13 weapons systems that Kerry voted to cut—the ones cited above, as well as Patriot air-defense missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and AH64 Apache helicopters, among others.

It is instructive, however, to look at the footnotes. Almost all of them cite Kerry's vote on Senate bill S. 3189 (CQ Vote No. 273) on Oct. 15, 1990. Do a Google search, and you will learn that S. 3189 was the Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act, and CQ Vote No. 273 was a vote on the entire bill. There was no vote on those weapons systems specifically.

On a couple of the weapons, the RNC report cites H.R. 5803 and H.R. 2126. Look those up. They turn out to be votes on the House-Senate conference committee reports for the defense appropriations bills in October 1990 (the same year as S. 3189) and September 1995.

In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank dishonesty.

Another bit of dishonesty is RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie's claim, at a news conference today, that in 1995, Kerry voted to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget. John Pike, who runs the invaluable globalsecurity.org Web site, told me what that cut was about: The Air Force's National Reconnaissance Office had appropriated that much money to operate a spy satellite that, as things turned out, it never launched. So the Senate passed an amendment rescinding the money—not to cancel a program, but to get a refund on a program that the NRO had canceled. Kerry voted for the amendment, as did a majority of his colleagues.

An examination of Kerry's real voting record during his 20 years in the Senate indicates that he did vote to restrict or cut certain weapons systems. From 1989-92, he supported amendments to halt production of the B-2 stealth bomber. (In 1992, George H.W. Bush halted it himself.) It is true that the B-2 came in handy during the recent war in Iraq—but for reasons having nothing to do with its original rationale.

The B-2 came into being as an airplane that would drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. The program was very controversial at the time. It was extremely expensive. Its stealth technology had serious technical bugs. More to the point, a grand debate was raging in defense circles at the time over whether, in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range cruise missiles, the United States needed any new bomber that would fly into the Soviet Union's heavily defended airspace. The debate was not just between hawks and doves; advocates and critics could be found among both.

In the latest war, B-2s—modified to carry conventional munitions—were among the planes that dropped smart bombs on Iraq. But that was like hopping in the Lincoln stretch limo to drop Grandma off at church. As for the other stealth plane used in both Iraq wars—the F-117, which was designed for non-nuclear missions—there is no indication that Kerry ever opposed it.

The RNC doesn't mention it, but Kerry also supported amendments to limit (but not kill) funding for President Reagan's fanciful (and eventually much-altered) "Star Wars" missile-defense system. Kerry sponsored amendments to ban tests of anti-satellite weapons, as long as the Soviet Union also refrained from testing. In retrospect, trying to limit the vulnerability of satellites was a very good idea since many of our smart bombs are guided to their targets by signals from satellites.

Kerry also voted for amendments to restrict the deployment of the MX missile (Reagan changed its deployment plan several times, and Bush finally stopped the program altogether) and to ban the production of nerve-gas weapons.

At the same time, in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.)

Are there votes in Kerry's 20-year record as a senator that might look embarrassing in retrospect? Probably. But these are not the ones.


Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate.

ok?

Also-
http://www.issues2000.org/International/John_Kerry_Defense.htm

C) Making up war crimes so he can get into the senate

So it would be better if we never talked about war crimes in Vietnam? Is that what a democratic state is supposed to do, cover up it's dirty laundry and deny it to the public?

What did John Kerry say-
Here's from Meet the Press-
http://hnn.us/articles/3552.html

On May 6, 2001 Tim Russert interviewed Senator John Kerry on Meet the Press. In the course of the interview, Mr. Russert asked the senator about his views on Vietnam.


MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned you're a military guy. There's been a lot of discussion about Bob Kerrey, your former Democratic colleague in the Senate, about his talking about his anguish about what happened in Vietnam . You were on this program 30 years ago as a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. And we went back and have an audiotape of that and some still photos. And your comments are particularly timely in this overall discussion of Bob Kerrey. And I'd like for you to listen to those with our audience and then try to put that war into some context:

(Audiotape, April 18, 1971):

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

(End audiotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Thirty years later, you stand by that?

SEN. KERRY: I don't stand by the genocide. I think those were the words of an angry young man. We did not try to do that. But I do stand by the description--I don't even believe there is a purpose served in the word "war criminal." I really don't. But I stand by the rest of what happened over there, Tim.

I mean, you know, we--it was--I mean, we've got to put this war in its right perspective and time helps us do that. I believe very deeply that it was a noble effort to begin with. I signed up. I volunteered. I wanted to go over there and I wanted to win. It was a noble effort to try to make a country democratic; to try to carry our principles and values to another part of the world. But we misjudged history. We misjudged our own country. We misjudged our strategy. And we fell into a dark place. All of us. And I think we learned that over time. And I hope the contribution that some of us made as veterans was to come back and help people understand that.

I think our soldiers served as nobly, on the whole, as in any war, and people need to understand that. There were great sacrifices, great contributions. And they came back to a country that didn't thank the veteran, that didn't--I mean, everything that the veteran gained in the ensuing years, Agent Orange recognition, post-Vietnam stress syndrome recognition, the extension of the G.I. Bill, you know, improvement of the V.A. hospitals, all came from Vietnam veterans themselves fighting for it. Indeed, even the memorial in Washington came from that.

MR. RUSSERT: By your own comments, Bob Kerrey was not alone in doing the things that he did.

SEN. KERRY: Oh, of course, not. And not only that, we, the government of our country, ran an assassination program. I mean, Bill Colby has acknowledged it. We had the Phoenix Program, where they actually went into villages to eliminate the civilian infrastructure of the Vietcong. Now, you couldn't tell the difference in many cases who they were. And countless veterans testified 30 years ago to that reality. And I think--look, there's no excusing shooting children in cold blood, or women, and killing them in cold blood. There isn't, under any circumstances. But we're not asking, you know, nor is Bob Kerrey saying, "Excuse us for what we did." We're asking people to try to understand the context and forgiveness. And I think the nation needs to understand what the nation put its young in a position to do, and move on and take those lessons and apply them to the future.

MR. RUSSERT: The folks who oversaw the war, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, you do not now 30 years later consider them war criminals?

SEN. KERRY: No, I think we did things that were tantamount that certainly violated the laws of war, but I think it was the natural consequence of the Cold War itself. People made decisions based on their perceptions of the world at that time. They were in error. They were judgments of error. But I think no purpose is served now by going down that road. I think, you know, the rhetoric of youth and of anger can be redeemed by the acts that we put in place after time to try to move us beyond that. And I think there are great lessons to learn from it. But we would serve no purpose with that now. But we have to be honest about the mistakes we made. We don't have legitimacy in the world, Tim, if we go to other countries, in Bosnia or China or anywhere else, and not say, "You know, we made some terrible mistakes."

And that honesty, that lack of a sense of honesty is part of what is driving people's anger toward the United States today. That's why we have the vote in the U.N. That's why people--our allies, too--are disturbed by this defense posture. You can't abrogate the ABM treaty and move forward on your own to build this defense in a way that threatens the perceptions of security people have. And if you build a defense system, Tim, that can do what they say at the outside, which is change mutual assured destruction, you have invited a potential adversary to build, build, build, to find a way around it. The lesson of the Cold War is, you do not make this planet safer by moving unilaterally into a place of new weapons. Every single advance in weaponry through the Cold War was matched by one side or the other, and that's why we put the ABM treaty in place, and that's why we need to proceed very cautiously and very thoughtfully.

If you are suggesting that this isn't true, than perhaps you need to read a bit more history on the Vietnam war.

CCR- if the truth will set you free, than what do lies do?

And how can you trust this president who has lied so often and gets away with it. Can you trust a leader who lies to you?

By that same definition Kerry is responsible for the Moveon.com adds that portray Bush as Hitler, and Fullofshit 9/11.

YOu mean like how the GOP's web site depicted the democrats as nazis?

Hardly. When the members of the Swift boat guys are tied to the GOP in Texas?

There is also little proof of a connection between John Kerry and Moveon or Moore's movie.

There are, after all, a lot of folks who don't like George Bush.

What is remarkable is that while Kerry has give us something of an agenda, the Bush people do little but negative smear campaign. Perhaps because they have nothing to offer except negative ads?


THe thing- look at the records-

Kerry on the issues-
http://www.issues2002.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm

Bush on the issues
http://www.issues2002.org/George_W__Bush.htm

Going to big companies? Come on Welsh, you don't actually belive that! It's insulting! Haliburton ALONE has lost as many people in Iraq as any country outside of USA/UK. Not to mention why the FUCK it was about wepons if the Paladin Artillery peice was cancelled?

Halliburton has lost people? What the fuck do they care as long as they are making a profit. You forget, the company's motive is to make money and it pays people to take risks. That's why the Blackwell guys and the other mercs get paid so damn well.

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1559574

Dec. 22, 2003 -- Oil services company Halliburton has come under intense scrutiny over its multi-billion-dollar contracts with the U.S. military in Iraq. Congressional critics want to know if the company is engaging in gold-plating contracts -- inflating costs and pocketing the difference. Other critics charge that Halliburton has seemingly become another branch of the U.S. military, while the company's former chief executive officer, Dick Cheney, is now the vice president.

http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=69

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1030-10.htm

WASHINGTON, October 30, 2003 — More than 70 American companies and individuals have won up to $8 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two years, according to a new study by the Center for Public Integrity. Those companies donated more money to the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush—a little over $500,000—than to any other politician over the last dozen years, the Center found.

and there lies the political connection.

Italy beat the Red Brigade. Moore was just being a ghrammar Nazi. Islamic Fundementalism will wane, and we will win, or it will begin infecting western europe, and we will loose. Simple.

Hardly, terrorism is a tactic, is a type of warfare and political protest. Merely destroying a movement will not stop the method. The method is simple, and it's not just violent groups that practice it, so do states. Movements and countries can be destroyed, but there is little chance a person can stop political assassination, bombings or other forms of violent protest. One can only reduce it.

[Bush is'nt an idiot, at least not in the traditional sense. He might have gotten into Yale on Nepotic grounds, but he did'nt flunk out. He's not as intellegent as Clinton, then again he's in alot of ways a more effective president.

Well he's managed to get us into a war and keep the economy a mess. This is the same guy who botched the companies he tried to run. Why are we surprised he's botching the country?

Hey the guy wanted to be a war president- and he got it. THe problem is that he got to be a war president without understanding the consequences of war because he was too chickenshit to find out for himself.

Puh-lease. He did'nt want to be a war president. If Gore was president on 9/11, he would have been a War President.

Do me a favor- save the Puh-lease for high school kids who might be entertained.

Yes, he wanted to be a war president- that's why his first national security meeting was about violently overthrowing Iraq and as soon as 9-11 happened he was looking for a way to link it to Iraq. the guy came in wanted to take our Iraq. That was it.

It's like this-
He said he was invading to stop WMD's- I think that was always bullshit and a way of justifying invasion to the UN, but that's me- anyway, no WMDs there despite lots of folks saying that there was no WMDs.

Then he changed the story- it's about fighting terrorism- but there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda until after we invaded.

Then he said it's about removing a brutal dictator- but we skipped doing that in Liberia - a more brutal dictator which could have been toppled much more easily.

So the question for Americans has to be- why are americans dieing in Iraq?

If you want to say, "well faulty intelligence" than you have to ask why the intelligence was faulty or fabricated. Or did they just make the case they needed?

So if they made a mistake, and people are dieing- who is responsible for this botch.

Because if I made a mistake and someone died for it, I'd have to pay for it.

Being president means not only that you are the leader, but you're the man finally responsible when the shit hits the fan. And pawning off on some other poor schlep, like they are doing with prison scandal, isn't going to sell.

It's simple- the guy fucked up. He needs to go.

 

[Bradylama]

How can you trust this guy?

And you trust Kerry?

Trusting politicians is what gets us into these messes. People should vote for the people that they respect instead of those that tell them what they want to hear.

 

[Kranle]

Maybe im being an ignorate dumbass 16 yearold teenagre but god im sick of this shit!!

If america wants to fuck themselves over so be it its not like every dam one of them reads these forums. just wish we could shutup about Bush Vs Kerry, its been beat to hell and past death already. And I would agree with Bradylama but still. even respect can be earned with pretty words and lies in situations.

still im just ranting a little. if you two are gonna keep debating stuff shoot away

 

[welsh]

kranle- Sorry but this is an important election. You might not get the chance to vote, but if you're 16 in the US, this election affects you too. Even if you're not in the US, this election affects you. But if you don't like the post, don't read it.

Bradylama- yes, I trust Kerry more than Bush. I am not saying I agree with everything he's done. But the guy believed in Vietnam, and went. The guy learned from experience and protested. If the republicans want to call him a flip-flopper (as if GWB doesn't) than we can also say that the guy thinks about things, reconsiders based on new information, and is not so stubborn that he can't change his mind. The rational mind is one that acknowledges information is never complete, that people can make mistakes and ofen mistakes can be reversed. So yeah, I trust him and I don't like the alternative.

Part of this is hindsight. Historically I've been pretty moderate. Pretty moderate here too. But one can look back at the past 20 years where I have been watching politics and few presidents have caused as much damage to this country domestically or internationally as GWB.

 

[Bradylama]

The guy learned from experience and protested. If the republicans want to call him a flip-flopper (as if GWB doesn't) than we can also say that the guy thinks about things, reconsiders based on new information, and is not so stubborn that he can't change his mind.

I'd like to say that about Kerry, but his "thinking" tends to manifest more in knee-jerk reactions rather than rational response. Such as when he voted no for the war budget.

Even then, how can you say you trust a person that changes his opinion every election year?

I'm not saying that Kerry is worse than Bush, but I do have a hard time believing that he'd be a more desirable alternative.

Then again, I did take the easy way out of that decision.

 

[4too]

Trial Ballon Pops!

Trial Balloon Pops!

B.:

... a person that changes his opinion ...

How about changes of "image"?

Wish I could cite an exact source, but in these 'daze' of - drive by - sound bites I will offer up my memory faculties to righteous abuse if in a speech before the RNC Bush not only stated, but repeated, he wanted to be the "peace" president. A rhythmic cadence, a steady knock, a broken record repeating into absurdity.

In the radio news context, his use of "peace" sounded hollow. Implied a denial of the PUSH to get to Iraq, a denial of the division of assets in the 'forced march' to Iraq while the Afghanistan campaign was still only months old. My gut reaction, my opinion, is that his writers and handlers were trying out lines for the coming RNC. A lot of Cheney's material was familiar too, if you followed his pre RNC touring beyond the treatment offered by the major media controlled portions.

These campaigns seem a very controlled presentation. The daily spin to cover a possible mistake, must make some dizzy. And, the justification of having people "pledge" their fealty to GWB to 'earn' a ticket to his road show sounds creepy. More 'feudal' homage to the 'cult of personality'. The insipid, softball questions of adoration and ego reinforcement, sounded more like 'est' converts praising Werner Erhard as their one true guru, than Americans applauding their party's president.

(Insert your deity noun here) preserve us if one of these 'comes out' in beige like Gore did, in a desperate attempt to conform to some paid marketer's high dollar advise.

""The Man IN BEIGE"", now how long did that "image" last?

No wonder Gore grew a beard after his retirement, had to get his testosterone levels back up before his voice changed pitch.


4too