There a new commercial out with ex-vietnam vets. Some of the ones that served with him on the boat that he led. They say that a view of his medals are a sham. And he that he was not facing fire when he went back to grab him out of the water. This add was not fund by the reb. So they say, some seperate group call reb vets for Bush or something like that. There was a couple reb. talking about it saying that they would never fund a commercial like that. Oh well the tactics that they use baffles me. I believe they seperate them from this add just in case its all bullshit.
Bush ran away from the whole Viet Nam issue when he was young. It's impossible to criticize someone for his combat experience when he didn't have any.
Doesn't this sort of miss the point? Hasn't Candidate Kerry made an issue of his Vietnam experience? And thus, isn't it imperative to examine the experience he is running on? Doesn't Candidate Kerry have a half dozen or so Vietnam Vets that campaign with and for him? And thus if 250 other vets wish to campaign against him, isn't that legitimate? And Doesn't George Soros fund a number of ads and groups that oppose the President's re-elction? So Thus, isn't it legitimate for others to fund groups that oppose Candidate Kerry? Honestly, I don't quite understand how President Bush's war experience or lack there-of, even comes into this issue. This is just tit for tat. OR it's just Free Speech.
It was your Chimp who began the "War-leader" issue in the first place. Nice attempt at Murdoch revisionism in assailing Kerry for responding to the non issue with an actual record of service. Yet you unquestioningly believe a pampered absentee national guardsman and untreated paranoid drunk (requiring constant medication for his mental instability) as capable of leading the nation into anything but one quagmire after another (with mounting debt all the way). Im of a mind to say let the country have him again and when things have sunk even further and all the bushbots and their children find their future opportunities non-existent, then perhaps we can stick them all back under the rock they crawled out from in the first place.
Naah. President Bush was pushing the "Compassionate Conservative" approach. But then we were attacked. Had you forgotten? I strongly urge you to follow this political plan. Sounds like a winner to me.
And you of course took this long revealed liar at his word about "compassionate conservatism" (with a grab bag of appointments to Iran Contra criminals and a PNAC agenda all waiting to be realised once he took office)? LOL. Now there is gullibility in its purest form!
You seem to have difficulty following the thread of an argument. This thread really isn't about President Bush, nor are my arguments. And the thread certainly isn't about me. Perhaps it would help if you actually looked at the questions I asked, and tried to answer them.
LOL. no, I argue like one who is sick and tired of the apparent neo-con hijacking of yet another politics site. Hmm, not about Bush - yet the starting post indeed focusses on Bush's advertising junta against Kerry's war record. Further I responded directly to your assertion that Kerry began the military service record issue, he certainly did not. Not about you, that's true, yet you again ask leading questions indicative of one scratching for endorsements of a foregone preference. Subtle you are indeed but fairly transparent to those who witness such rhetorical tactics daily.
So you don't want the 250 Swifties to have a chance to speak, AND you don't want to answer my "subtle" questions?
Let them all speak for all I care. Nothing would prevent them from doing so nor would the veracity of such reports be questioned given the regurgitative nature of US domestic media. Sorry, but I have little interest in the partisanship of this year's election. I am more concerned with the overarching policies of deception and perpetual warmongering foisted on the public since 911. Present terror alerts only serve to differentiate those who remain willing to subscribe to their authenticity as well as to the claims of who would actually perpetrate such an attack, and those of us who see beyond the ruse to the true power grab at work in all this fearmongering. If Kerry is having trouble in such a public context, then clearly the supposed "liberal" media is merely doing to him what it did to Gore in 2000. There's your answer once again. If its insufficient for you, take it to Military.com, theyll blindly support Bush to your heart's content (and ban anyone who doesn't).
I didn't say they didn't have a right to voice their opinion. I said Bush has no combat experience and Kerry does. 250 national guard members can bash Bush's guard record if they want. Kerry has war experience and Bush doesn't, no matter how many people bash each candidate about the issue. I thought the ad against Kerry was shallow. It sounded like a bunch of little girls whining. Each person made a little soundbite and it went on and on. I thought they could at least be a little more creative and try to formulate an argument as to why they think the way they do.
Heh, you ain't seen shit. We got a political ad here an it goes like comparin this local-lady politicain to Hillary Clinton, sayin' that they're both supported by the, and I quote "Radical homosexuals and feminists", that they're both supported by the "Liberal 'Teacher's Union'", and supported "Ted Kennedy's EDU", whatever that is, and are supporeted by the "Environmental Radicals". But, only this local politican was "100% supported by the ACLU" And the ad ends with "Vote for me, 'So and So'(i forgot the fucker's name) I'm the Real Conservative" and it's him wit a picture of him with that racist asshole Jesse Helms.
as i recall, though i don't remember much, but it actually was the bush camp who came out to begin with attacking kerry for standing next to jane fonda or some shit, then coming back and protesting the veitnam war. they were trying to sling mud, before he even realized that dean was out and he was in. in turn his camp went searching for bush's record, funny, how nothing could be found. like i've said from the beginning though i don't give a flying fuck what either of them did over 25 years ago. the only thing i care about is what they can and plan to do in the here and now. and neither of them are good enough for me so they can kill each other for all i care, then perhaps we can have a real election with some real candidates and get back to what really fucking matters. btw, no vet in his right mind would vote for bush, with how much he as cut benefits, so the commercial is pointless. you won't convince people who actually have a clue about what is going on, with stupid commercials, most of us know they are bullshit. just turn the tv off son.
Well, Kerry's the one who's nearly based his entire campaign on his 4 months in Vietnam, rather than his 20 years in the Senate.
No, Bush and his neo-con cronies were the ones to make the entire war leadership capability an issue from the start, not Kerry. Yet, as it has been exposed that Bush has no legitimate record upon which to stand up to Kerry's, it has merely become fashionable for the right to now claim Kerry is the phony instigator. Just further example of the sort of divisive character smearing which has marked this administration every step of its hatemongering way. No integrity restored to the office of President and certainly no shining national unity to lend substance to the neo-con claims of the past 3 years.
Uh, leadership in the present war on terror is very relevant to the presidential election. However, I'm not sure that the actions of either candidate 25 years ago are all that meaningful. Evidently, though, Kerry doesn't have much else to run on.
it isn't relevant to me, because i didn't want to go to war to begin with and i don't want us there now, nor in the future. therefore, the only thing that matters is who will put an end to this occupation and move on to more important matters. and the only person who can do that is nader, that is why i'm not voting for either of the two major parties. (you can save your breath about my being a spoiler, that is my prerogative) and he is not doing a good job anyway, so even if i did care about continuing this "war", i would still think he is not competent to lead the military or a country. as a matter of fact, i question whether or not he can even dress himself in the morning without being completely dumbfounded.
Its not relevant except to highlite the typical and repeated hypocrisy and dodges of the Bush administration every time it interjects another divisive issue into the election debate for which it is itself incapable of displaying any merits. If the war on terror is such an issue to you then you are indeed looking through rose coloured glasses if you expect a chimp with years of substance abuse, mediocre academic qualifications, a pampered and evasive national guard record (concerning which he can't even account for his whereabouts) and subsequent string of failed business ventures to lead effectively. I join the many who dont give a rats ass for military qualifications whatsoever as I eschew our long prevailing (and ultimately self defeating) MIC serving foreign policy doctrine. I do however give a rats ass that our nation has been hijacked by wanton liars and war profiteers, many of whom should have been in prison years ago.
