Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I keep hearing this argument, but it strikes me that the whole VN issue is like a fucking black hole. Both candidates are getting sucked into it, and no light is escaping.

It doesn't seem to matter if you drove your Swiftboat into it, or it you flew your outdated fighter jet far, far from its center.

Just like the Republican wag who commented that when the GOP is thru with Kerry, "people won't be sure what side he fought on," I think that near November people will forget how much Bush wanted this campaign to be about bullhorns and not fighter jets.

The problem is that Bush's performance as CinC supercedes anything that may have made him questionnably unqualified in the past. Kerrey has a stature gap that he tried to fill with his VN service. Now there are questions regarding that service and thus his stature.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not according to his statements this week. He said this was the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place.

flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop,

Like I've said before, people are stupid and have short memories. Kerry should have said this months ago, regardless of what he initially said about the war.

Now I'm wallowing in the GOP's shit, and it feels fine. Fuck it, Kerry needs to bring the hammer. Let's get dirty.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• In February, when the White House made public hundreds of pages of President Bush's military records, White House officials repeatedly insisted that the records prove that Bush fulfilled his military commitment in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. But Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe reexamination of the records shows: Twice... Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty. He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show....
  
  On July 30, 1973, shortly before he moved from Houston to Cambridge, Bush signed a document that declared, ''It is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to another Reserve forces unit or mobilization augmentation position. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary order to active duty for up to 24 months. . . " Under Guard regulations, Bush had 60 days to locate a new unit. But Bush never signed up with a Boston-area unit.... Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post that Bush finished his six-year commitment at a Boston area Air Force Reserve unit after he left Houston. Not so, Bartlett now concedes. ''I must have misspoke," Bartlett, who is now the White House communications director, said in a recent interview....
  
  Bush, a fighter-interceptor pilot, performed no service for one six-month period in 1972 and for another period of almost three months in 1973, the records show.... Bush's attendance at required training drills was so irregular that his superiors could have disciplined him or ordered him to active duty in 1972, 1973, or 1974. But they did neither. In fact, Bush's unit certified in late 1973 that his service had been ''satisfactory" -- just four months after Bush's commanding officer wrote that Bush had not been seen at his unit for the previous 12 months....
  
  Army Colonel Gerald A. Lechliter, one of a number of retired military officers who have studied Bush's records and old National Guard regulations.... ''He broke his contract with the United States government -- without any adverse consequences. And the Texas Air National Guard was complicit in allowing this to happen," Lechliter said in an interview yesterday. ''He was a pilot. It cost the government a million dollars to train him to fly. So he should have been held to an even higher standard."

Boston Globe

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
This is well stated. However, I am curious as to what would possibly give you the idea that GWB would do anything except coddle SA?

do you get your question from bridgeoflove.com or Mike's flick (which relied upon BOL as his source of the facts)?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not exactly. There was one guy, produced by the White House, who said Bush was there, except that he said Bush was there at times when no one else -- including Bush -- thinks he was there. So that part's not looking so good.

Do you have a cite? The guy I saw interviewed (a Col. I believe) was not produced by the White House.

In any event, per my prior post, Bush's NGS has been trumped by his CIC service.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Like I've said before, people are stupid and have short memories. Kerry should have said this months ago, regardless of what he initially said about the war.

Now I'm wallowing in the GOP's shit, and it feels fine. Fuck it, Kerry needs to bring the hammer. Let's get dirty.

It isn't what he initially said, his statements have been all over the board in the last year. As recently as August 2004, he made the statements that he would have gone to war. Now, several weeks later, he changes his mind again. How does this inspire leadership confidence?

The left has been dirty for the last 2 years. You are right, people do have short memories, including you.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not according to his statements this week. He said this was the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place.

flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop,

So can we win the war on terror or not?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Like I've said before, people are stupid and have short memories. Kerry should have said this months ago, regardless of what he initially said about the war.

you do recognize video tape lasts for at least a few years, right? Kerry should stick to one story, its starting to get silly, and he won't dodge the flipflop if he keeps expanding it. as I mentioned above the real issue is can he make a stand.If you can make a stand on how you feel about shit that has happened, how can we trust you to decide what will happen?

I don't care if Bush spent the 60's in an opium den I know how he'll be as president.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
but I'd guess that has more to do with problems with the definition of "victory"

or "mission" or "accomplished"

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The problem is that Bush's performance as CinC supercedes anything that may have made him questionnably unqualified in the past.

The NG stuff is fun, but believe me, Bush's performance as CinC is the reason I'm voting the way I am this November.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
or "mission" or "accomplished"

yeah, that. I paraphrase.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It isn't what he initially said, his statements have been all over the board in the last year. As recently as August 2004, he made the statements that he would have gone to war. Now, several weeks later, he changes his mind again. How does this inspire leadership confidence?

The left has been dirty for the last 2 years. You are right, people do have short memories, including you.

The fact that he can speak w/out making up words inspires confidence.

The fact that he's not an intellectual moron inspires confidence.

The fact that he doesn't believe he's doing god's will inspires confidence.

The fact that OBL is still at large does not. It's been 3 fucking years. Bush has had his chance.

As far as Kerry's stance goes, I'm glad he's finally coming around to my way of thinking.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you get your question from bridgeoflove.com or Mike's flick (which relied upon BOL as his source of the facts)?

Neither. It was the guy I saw outside the donut shop with the tin foil on his head this morning.

Actually, I was thinking more of the initial 9/11 Senate intel report which had all of the SA references redacted ostensibly because the govt didn't want to compromise "sources and methods", while the ranking members from both parties said that there was no security interest involved beyond keeping SA's name out of the mud. But I'm sure Moore had some catchier footage than that. Like many who decry it, I have not yet seen F911.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I've never understood why seemingly intelligent people, like you and Slave, keep repeating this mantra, as if a woman who shows some skin deserves to get raped.

1. Why would you blame a rape on a woman for wearing revealing clothing? That's offensive.

2. We repeat it because it's true. Kerry has attempted to sell himself as a war hero, and he pointedly spends lots of time and attention on that, while steering away from his record in the intervening twenty years. Unfortunately for him, hanging your hat on only one qualifier leaves you vulnerable. Bush's claimed qualifications, on the other hand, are much more diverse. So, a hit on something like this - something that he doesn't even call out as a qualification - has less voter impact, except in the hard-core Democratic ranks. Whereas Kerry can take a numbers hit on a Swifties sort of thing, I think the impact on Bush is minor.

[Gattigap]

From Wonkette:

Fearing that he may have been too subtle, Cheney also warned that should Bush fail to be re-elected, the waters will rise, the seas will boil, blood shall rain down upon the land, and terrorists will visit upon the house of each individual Kerry voter and there shall be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth. Cheney then brought his cloak across his face, laughed maniacally and disappeared in a puff of smoke, leaving his support staff to cast goat entrails to determine the fate of the world should the GOP lose the Senate.