Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is fine, except that its untrue. There has already been guys who have come forward and vouched that he was there, including his commanding officer.

There have been guys that have come forward and vouched for Kerrey too. Your point would be?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap

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.

Politics aside, she is funny.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski


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

Well if that's the standard you're using, we should re-elect Clinton. Mean regression over 8 years is more accurate than over 4.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
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.

My understanding is that there is a new book coming out by Senator Graham which will show a direct link between two of the 9/11 terrorists and the SA royal family/government. I get the impression that link was discussed in the Congressional 9/11 report but later classified by the White House.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
There have been guys that have come forward and vouched for Kerrey too. Your point would be?

Wasn't their big mantra based on something like, "why can't Bush find anyone who was there with him?"?

[taxwonk]

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. 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.

I would put 16 years in the Senate against four years of increasing deficits, lost jobs, and a military policy that has been thus far unsuccessful, in terms of stabilizing either Afghanistan or Iraq, or decreasing the level of terrorism.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
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.

Per my PM, search Kevin Drum's archives and you will find it.

And it's not like this election is about a choice between Bush's record and Kerry's character. These stories -- Swift boats, Bush AWOL -- are about seizing the tactical advantage in the race. The real story is, who has the better campaign tactics. Political junkies -- from whom the ranks of campaign reporters are drawn -- want to be "neutral" and think it's more fair to cover the campaign as a horse race, with the side that shows more tactical campaign skill in the lead. Besides, policy is boring.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
a military policy that has been thus far unsuccessful, in terms of stabilizing either Afghanistan or Iraq, or decreasing the level of terrorism.

1 how many attacks in the US since 9/11?

2 what does JFK claim he'll do differently? try and get the French to come to Iraq and help. that is, he ain't got a different plan wonk.

[bilmore]

Here's how Cheney's point was presented in the news account:

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," "

Here's the full context, which I think makes his meaning clear:

"We made decisions at the end of World War II, at the beginning of the Cold War, when we set up the Department of Defense, and the CIA, and we created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and undertook a bunch of major policy steps that then were in place for the next 40 years, that were key to our ultimate success in the Cold War, that were supported by Democrat and Republican alike -- Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon and Gerry Ford and a whole bunch of Presidents, from both parties, supported those policies over a long period of time. We're now at that point where we're making that kind of decision for the next 30 or 40 years, and it's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.

We have to understand it is a war. It's different than anything we've ever fought before. But they mean to do everything they can to destroy our way of life. They don't agree with our view of the world. They've got an extremist view in terms of their religion. They have no concept or tolerance for religious freedom. They don't believe women ought to have any rights. They've got a fundamentally different view of the world, and they will slaughter -- as they demonstrated on 9/11 -- anybody who stands in their way. So we've got to get it right. We've got to succeed here. We've got to prevail. And that's what is at stake in this election."

Presentation makes a difference. Selective editing changes meaning. I think he was completely correct to say what he said.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?


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

You're kidding on this one, right? Because if so you really ought to be voting for Nader.

What is Kerry's plan on capturing him?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Wasn't their big mantra based on something like, "why can't Bush find anyone who was there with him?"?

I don't know. I haven't really harped on the NG issue, but if I had, my mantra would have been, why can't he counter the records and people who can demonstrate that he wasn't there?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
1 how many attacks in the US since 9/11?

2 what does JFK claim he'll do differently? try and get the French to come to Iraq and help. that is, he ain't got a different plan wonk.

1. Even Bush's people acknowledge that if al-Queda wanted to hit us again next month, they could, and we'd not be in any more of a realistic position to stop them.

2. Kerry's at least got a timeframe for bringing the troops home.

[pony_trekker]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield

In the end, there are three options:

1. Stalemate. . . .
2. Wholesale persecution/elimination of radical Islam everywhere. . . .

3. Isolationism. . . .

We're stuck with #1. . . .

Well, I think if we took a good hard try at 2 that would be a start. It worked like a charm in WWII.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
2. Kerry's at least got a timeframe for bringing the troops home.

sure. what's it based on? his timeframe is part of the problem with him.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Here's how Cheney's point was presented in the news account:

Here's the full context, which I think makes his meaning clear:

Presentation makes a difference. Selective editing changes meaning. I think he was completely correct to say what he said.

Even in context, the message is still, vote for us or die. I never doubted he had a framework in which the quote was set. That doesn't mean it isn't still demagoguery. And it doesn't really change the meaning, it only offers a rationale. Your approval of the rationale is what makes the diffference for you.