KERRY FIGHTS OFF MEDIA PROBE OF RECENT OF INFIDELITY - DRUDGE REPORT

[adios]

This is the kind of stuff that detracts from the issueS and probably forces candidates to take to the low road. Don't know if it's true, don't know much about Drudge. In an editorial yesterday the Wall Street Journal was musing about why Kerry backed off of the smear campaign against Bush so suddenly. The Journal speculated that there may be some skeletons in Kerry's closet. Anyway certainly when the low road is taken, the other side tends to retaliate in kind.

CAMPAIGN DRAMA ROCKS DEMOCRATS: KERRY FIGHTS OFF MEDIA PROBE OF RECENT ALLEGED INFIDELITY, RIVALS PREDICT RUIN (http://www.drudgereport.com/mattjk1.htm)

CAMPAIGN DRAMA ROCKS DEMOCRATS: KERRY FIGHTS OFF MEDIA PROBE OF RECENT ALLEGED INFIDELITY, RIVALS PREDICT RUIN

**World Exclusive**
**Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**

A frantic behind-the-scenes drama is unfolding around Sen. John Kerry and his quest to lockup the Democratic nomination for president, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

Intrigue surrounds a woman who recently fled the country, reportedly at the prodding of Kerry, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

A serious investigation of the woman and the nature of her relationship with Sen. John Kerry has been underway at TIME magazine, ABC NEWS, the WASHINGTON POST, THE HILL and the ASSOCIATED PRESS, where the woman in question once worked.

MORE

A close friend of the woman first approached a reporter late last year claiming fantastic stories -- stories that now threaten to turn the race for the presidency on its head!

In an off-the-record conversation with a dozen reporters earlier this week, General Wesley Clark plainly stated: "Kerry will implode over an intern issue." [Three reporters in attendance confirm Clark made the startling comments.]

The Kerry commotion is why Howard Dean has turned increasingly aggressive against Kerry in recent days, and is the key reason why Dean reversed his decision to drop out of the race after Wisconsin, top campaign sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.



Developing...

[ThaSaltCracka]

One thing you should know about Matt Drudge, he lies more than Rush, so believe it if you want to, I don't buy it for a minute.
PS. and I am not even a Kerry supporter

[adios]

I have little to no knowledge of Drudge or even Limbaugh for that matter. But I think it's unfortunate that gutter politics is in full swing now.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing you should know about Matt Drudge, he lies more than Rush, so believe it if you want to, I don't buy it for a minute.
PS. and I am not even a Kerry supporter

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it unusual that these people lie so much, according to you, yet are not successfully sued for libel or slander, whichever may be applicable. Do you have an explanation for this Salt?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it unusual that these people lie so much, according to you, yet are not successfully sued for libel or slander, whichever may be applicable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was wondering about that myself. I don't know if this report if untrue, qualifies as libel but it seems like it would to me. Also if Drudge had no credibility wouldn't he just fade into the woodwork? I mean at least some people believe he's credible or he would have no following.

[adios]

Now if Clark thought Kerry would implode would he be endorsing Kerry?

Source Says Clark Ready to Endorse Kerry
8 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - John Kerry (news - web sites) lined up the support of campaign dropout Wesley Clark (news - web sites) on Thursday, hoping to pre-empt any move by his remaining Democratic presidential rivals to sneak up on him in next week's Wisconsin primary.

Democratic officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Clark would bestow his endorsement on the front-runner on Friday in Madison, Wis. Kerry gained Clark's pledge of support as rivals John Edwards (news - web sites) and Howard Dean (news - web sites) crisscrossed the state, focusing on jobs and health care.


Clark spokesman Matt Bennett would not confirm the endorsement, only saying, "General Clark is looking forward to going to Wisconsin to be with Senator Kerry."


Kerry has racked up wins in 12 of 14 Democratic contests and hopes to add Wisconsin to his win column. The backing of Clark, who registered in the low double digits in earlier Wisconsin polls, could increase Kerry's advantage in a state with 72 pledged delegates at stake.


Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin said Thursday that Kerry's rivals are "really bucking against a strong national trend" as they try to defeat the front-runner in Wisconsin.


"I think Senator Kerry is in very good position here," said Doyle, who added that it is unlikely he will endorse a candidate before Tuesday's primary. He said Kerry "would be an outstanding nominee."


Doyle, who passed out leaflets for Kerry's failed congressional campaign years ago, said there always is a potential for surprise and "Wisconsin does have a trend of independence."


"On the other hand, what I tend to see happening here is a national event taking place, and not 15 or 16 isolated events. So what polls seem to suggest is happening across the country is happening here as well. Senator Kerry is in very strong position," Doyle said.


The Southern-bred Clark dropped out of the race for the White House on Wednesday after disappointing third-place finishes in Tennessee and Virginia. The retired four-star Army general was unable to command significant support as a first-time presidential candidate, winning just one state — Oklahoma.


He coupled his withdrawal with words of praise for his remaining rivals — Kerry, Sen. John Edwards and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.


"They're good men, they're good Democrats and they're good patriots," Clark said. "Our country is well-served" by them, he added.


Clark, a 59-year-old career military man from Arkansas, burst onto the campaign last fall, supplanting his more experienced and better-known rivals at the top of the polls and demonstrating significant fund-raising ability.


The commanding general in NATO (news - web sites)'s war in Kosovo in 1999, Clark anchored his political appearances with a pledge of "a higher standard of leadership" and spoke to campaign audiences often of service, duty and honor.


Strategically, his first key decision was to bypass the kickoff Iowa caucuses in favor of the New Hampshire primary eight days later. Kerry's surprise caucus triumph trumped Clark's plan, and the former general faded to a distant third.


After Kerry won a surprise victory in the Iowa caucuses, Clark suggested that Kerry's experience as a Navy lieutenant could not match his own as a four-star general. He toned down his remarks, saying he wasn't trying to distinguish between his rank and Kerry's.


Clark wrestled with the decision to end his campaign as election returns rolled in Tuesday night, with advisers urging him to quit and family pushing him to continue. Before deciding to exit, he thanked several hundred cheering backers.


"We may have lost this battle today, but I tell you what, we're not to lose the battle for America's future," he said Tuesday.





In appealing to voters, Clark relied almost entirely on his 34 years in military service. Supporters touted other qualities — his Southern roots and his status as a Washington outsider — that they contended made Clark the candidate most likely to defeat Bush. Plus, he provided another forceful voice in condemning the war in Iraq (news - web sites), which he frequently called unnecessary, reckless and wrong.

[Taxman]

Lots of people with questionable credibility are popular because they tell people what they want to hear, or what entertains them. Look at things like the National Enquirer. Personally I've never even heard of Drudge which is odd since I tend to be aware of people like him. Not trying to conclude anything from that other than I should look into him more. Unless explicit accusations are made without any base, I don't think it can qualify as libel. Frankly this seems like vague fluff to me, the type of thing people like Drudge (seems to be), specialize in. I don't think Skeletons in Kerry's closet would stay there whether or not he slung mud himself. I sigh too when I hear the sounds of issue absent insults eminating from my television and I must say that if it turns out Kerry had an affair or something A) he's smart enough to just fess up and B) everyone realizes how mind numbingly unimportant that fact is.

[HDPM]

Well, we'll see. Drudge broke some major stories on Clinton that turned out to be true. If this report is true, left wing media outlets are the ones looking. Time, ABC, Washington Post are all pretty far left. It isn't like this is a bunch of republicans going to mud slinging. Is it true? We will find out soon enough.

[ThaSaltCracka]

which stories did he "break"?

[jokerswild]

Matt Sludge should be audited. I bet that he's being paid to counter attack with lies and smears because Ol'Yeller's poll numbers are crumbling.

[HDPM]

Hmmmm, I do seem to remember Clinton using the IRS as a weapon against political enemies. One reason to cut taxes about 75%

[jokerswild]

I fear that if his numbers should drop below 40% (Kerry 52, Bush 43 in the latest Washington Post poll), then he and the neo-cons will orchestrate another terrorist attack on American soil.

There are plenty of unanswered questions about 9-11. The White House has fought tooth and nail to keep the facts from the American people. They continue to withold documents, and are fighting in court to avoid having to release them to the 9-11 commission. Make no mistake, the neocons represent the fascist element in the USA, and have no respect whatsoever for the Constitution of the United States.

[B-Man]

[George Rice]

From today's AP:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040216/D80OG9380.html


[ QUOTE ]
Woman Denies Rumors of Kerry Affair


Feb 16, 12:57 PM (ET)


By MATTHEW ROSENBERG


NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) - A woman who has been the subject of rumors linking her to Sen. John Kerry denied Monday that she ever had an affair with the Democratic presidential candidate.

Breaking her silence four days after the allegations surfaced on the Internet, Alexandra Polier issued a statement to The Associated Press, saying, "I have never had a relationship with Senator Kerry, and the rumors in the press are completely false."

Kerry already has denied reports that he had an extramarital affair. On Monday, his campaign said he would have no further comment.

Polier's statement was released to the AP in Nairobi, where the 27-year-old freelance journalist is visiting the parents of her fiance, Yaron Schwartzman, an Israeli who was raised in Kenya. She previously worked as an editorial assistant for the AP in New York.

"Whoever is spreading these rumors and allegations does not know me," Polier said, appealing to the media to respect her privacy and the privacy of her fiance and his family.

Polier also took issue with reports that referred to her as a former Kerry intern.

"I never interned or worked for John Kerry," she told AP over the phone.

In a separate statement, Polier's parents, Terry and Donna Polier of Malvern, Pa., dismissed the "completely false and unsubstantiated" allegations about their daughter.

"We love and support her 100 percent and these unfounded rumors are hurtful to our entire family," the statement said. "We appreciate the way Senator Kerry has handled the situation, and intend on voting for him for president of the United States."

The statement did not address purported quotes by Polier's parents in the British tabloid The Sun that were harshly critical of Kerry.

Kerry has won 14 of 16 Democratic primaries and caucuses, and is expected to be the Democratic challenger to President Bush in November.

Rumors of a relationship between Kerry and Polier first appeared Thursday on the Internet and were picked up by newspapers in several countries outside the United States. Few U.S. publications printed her name, however.

Asked Friday about the reports, Kerry told reporters: "I just deny it categorically. It's rumor. It's untrue. And that's the last time I intend" to respond to questions about it.

Regarding her silence until now, Polier said, "Because these stories were false, I assumed the media would ignore them. It seems that efforts to peddle these lies continue, so I feel compelled to address them."

By Monday, reporters and photographers were camped outside the Schwartzmans' Nairobi home, and at one point pursued the car of Yaron's mother, Hannah Schwartzman, as she left the walled compound.

Polier and Yaron Schwartzman met at Columbia University. They arrived in Kenya last October.

Polier graduated from Clark University in Worcester, Mass., in 1999. She received her master's in journalism from Columbia in 2003.



[/ QUOTE ]

[adios]

Even if the story was true it wouldn't destroy Kerry's candidacy IMO. British media quoted her parents as stating that Kerry did pursue her and that Kerry was a sleazeball which directly contradicts this story. Also the British media states that an American network has an interview with her stating that she did have a fling with Kerry but they won't air it unless they can corroborate the story. Even with this denial we haven't seen the end of the story IMO. Too bad it's getting this much attention.

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
British media quoted her parents as stating that Kerry did pursue her and that Kerry was a sleazeball which directly contradicts this story. Also the British media states that an American network has an interview with her stating that she did have a fling with Kerry but they won't air it unless they can corroborate the story.

[/ QUOTE ]

The British media? lol. You are a funny guy.

[ QUOTE ]
The statement did not address purported quotes by Polier's parents in the British tabloid The Sun that were harshly critical of Kerry.



[/ QUOTE ]

I guess this Kerry story appeared next to an article documentating Kerry's love child with a Martian.



Rush Limbaugh says today that there must be more to the story, citing among other things that there must be a reason Ms. Polier went to Kenya.

[ QUOTE ]
Polier's statement was released to the AP in Nairobi, where the 27-year-old freelance journalist is visiting the parents of her fiance, Yaron Schwartzman, an Israeli who was raised in Kenya.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aha! There was a reason she went to Kenya. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[jokerswild]

Now the sleazy Drudge doesn't print a retraction, he continues to try and find something that obviously didn't happen.

I'm surprised that Bush didn't name Ken Starr to a new cabinet post:the Grand Inquisitor of opponenets of George W.Bush. It appears that he named Matt Drudge as the the unofficial Grand Liabler of "enemies of G.W. Bush".

This administration resembles that of Richard Nixon's more and more all the time.

[adios]

Kerry to answer sex affair claim (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8673603%255E401,00.html)

Kerry to answer sex affair claim
By New York Correspondent PHILLIP COOREY
February 14, 2004

FACING the first crisis of his campaign, Democratic presidential nomination front-runner John Kerry will today respond to allegations he had a two-year affair with a young woman who has since fled the country.

Branded a political dirty trick by the Democrats, the pro-Republican Drudge Report website yesterday accused Senator Kerry, 60, of having an affair that threatened "to turn the race for the presidency on its head".

At the centre of the allegations is Alex Polier, 24, who had worked as a New York-based reporter for Associated Press. She now is now in Kenya.

Her parents, Donna and Terry, speaking from Malvern, Pennsylvania yesterday, said there was no evidence of an affair, only that Senator Kerry may have been attracted to their daughter.

Mr Polier said Senator Kerry had called his daughter "two or three years ago" to ask her to work on his re-election team. She declined.

Whether or not there's a story there, two papers have at least corroborated the claim that Kerry called her at her parents house. I found the "sleazeball" quote in more than one place in online British pubs but maybe they all originated with the SUN don't know for sure.

[George Rice]

I wouldn't go out too far on that limb. People have been known to retract their denials. Especially in political matters.

But by all means, flame away on Drudge. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
Drudge, which broke the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal, alleged yesterday that a young woman, "recently fled the country, reportedly at the prodding of Kerry" after a two-year affair beginning in early 2001.



[/ QUOTE ]

I love the "fled the country" quote from Dredge.

[ QUOTE ]
I found the "sleazeball" quote in more than one place in online British pubs but maybe they all originated with the SUN don't know for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. But don't fathers think that of all guys interested in their daughters, until they marry them? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[George Rice]

Candidate, campaign finance chief, what's the difference? Aren't they the same person?

Maybe Drudge should get his facts straight before slandering someone.

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattjk7.htm

[ QUOTE ]
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX FRI FEB 16, 2004 14:05:38 ET XXXXX

KERRY MYSTERY WOMAN DATED CAMPAIGN FINANCE CHIEF

**Exclusive**

A woman at the center of John Kerry intrigue dated longtime Kerry Finance Director Peter Maroney, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

When pressed by media outlets in recent week, the Kerry campaign confirmed the relationship, according to top sources.

Alex Polier on Monday denied "Internet and tabloid rumors relating to me and Senator John Kerry."

Rumors swirling around Polier ignited a behind-the-scenes campaign drama.

As first reported in this space, a serious investigation of the woman and the nature of her relationship with Sen. John Kerry has been underway at TIME magazine, ABC NEWS, the WASHINGTON POST, THE HILL and the ASSOCIATED PRESS, where the woman in question once worked.

TIME magazine's Tim Burger and ABC NEWS have developed intriguing elements to the case, sources reveal.

She would joke that she was dating 'the next president of the United States, says a source.

Polier's flippant remarks and flirtatious manner, according to friends, fueled the intrigue.

In an off-the-record conversation with a dozen reporters earlier this week, General Wesley Clark plainly stated: "Kerry will implode over an intern issue." [Three reporters in attendance confirm Clark made the startling comments. "This guy is going to blow up. Have you seen the NATIONAL ENQUIRER story" [on Kerry's womanizing].

The Kerry commotion is the key reason why Dean reversed his decision to drop out of the race after Wisconsin, campaign sources said.

Developing...


[/ QUOTE ]

[Cyrus]

So, John Kerry had no relationship whatsoever with "that woman". One of Kerry's capaign chiefs might have had a relationship. It all comes down to a pathetic little attempt at smearing the Democratic candidate.

Here's an exercise I would very much like to see done by the Drudge followers of this page : Hold your breath until Drudge apologizes.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Utah]

It all comes down to a pathetic little attempt at smearing the Democratic candidate.

No! They wouldn't do that! I mean, why can't they simply follow the lead of those nice little democrats that wouldn't even hurt a fly. [dislaimer: please ignore the fact that the democrats smeared GW at the PARTY level (where drudge is a psuedo journalist)over his was record when they knew their claim was patently false and that their last president was a draft dodger. Please ignore that the Democrats and journalists had a frenzy with Arnold over sexual allegations and that the LA Times conspired to get Arnold defeated]

Please help me answer a simple question - Why didn't Kerry immediately say that he didn't have an affair instead of waiting so long? Maybe or likely he didn't do it but it seems very suspicious - kinda like, "well lets see what the girl says before we say anything. What did you say? She is going to deny it! Yes! Lets get to the media and strongly deny it as well". Also, her denial and the denial of the parents means nothing. Would you want (or have your daughter) be Lewinsky'd?

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
Please help me answer a simple question - Why didn't Kerry immediately say that he didn't have an affair instead of waiting so long? Maybe or likely he didn't do it but it seems very suspicious - kinda like, "well lets see what the girl says before we say anything. What did you say? She is going to deny it! Yes! Lets get to the media and strongly deny it as well". Also, her denial and the denial of the parents means nothing. Would you want (or have your daughter) be Lewinsky'd?


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, do you have a source in the Kerry camp? I seem to remember him deneying it on Imus the next day.

By the way, Clinton avoided the draft. He wasn't a "draft dodger". You have to have actually been drafted in order to dodge it. Not that he shouldn't be criticized. Just that you shouldn't exaggerate the facts in order to make your point stronger. You lose respect of the readers that way. Assuming that you even care.

[Taxman]

George is right about misconstruing the facts. Give me a break about this whole stupid thing. Kerry probably didn't even know about these wannabe allegations or at least he knew what crap they were and thus didn't bother to respond. A politician can't go around responding to every tiny allegation, especially ones that are so blatantly manufactured. Or maybe, maybe, he did have an affair. If so, who the hell cares!? Something like 50% or more of all married men do it including many prominent Republicans and Democrats throughout history. In the end, this entire subject is rediculous and unimportant. Do I disapprove of infidelity? Sure, but in the end such decisions have no bearing on political leadership ability.

[Utah]

You guys need to relax a bit on this board. I am just having a little fun with Cyrus, as I always do.

BTW - to Dodge: To evade (an obligation, for example) by cunning, trickery, or deceit: kept dodging the reporter's questions. This doesn't fit ole' slicks actions?

but in the end such decisions have no bearing on political leadership ability

Of course it does - a man's character is critical to his leadership. I would rather have a leader with character that I disagree with than someone who I agree with but has no character at all. I think a man's betrayal of the person closest to him is important to character. Is it a deal breaker? No. But, it is a factor.

Saying it is not a factor is as ridiculious as saying, "Well, Kerry/Bush cheats on his taxes. However, what the heck does doing ones taxes have to do with leadership?"

[Taxman]

Ok, first you'll have to forgive someone relatively new to this board for not knowing what you always do.

BTW - Dodging the draft is a legal term with a very specific definition outside your attempts to demonstrate otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course it does - a man's character is critical to his leadership. I would rather have a leader with character that I disagree with than someone who I agree with but has no character at all. I think a man's betrayal of the person closest to him is important to character. Is it a deal breaker? No. But, it is a factor.


[/ QUOTE ]

First, this is misdirecting the point of the discussion and nitpicking at semantics, something that I have noticed is a common evasive technique here. Second, I might add that following your model, we must condemn a great deal of political figures on both sides for infidelity (which we should to a certain extent, IMO). I already said that I disapprove of such actions, but I maintain that it still has no bearing on a person's ability to be President, or a Senator, or a Mayor etc. A generally dishonest character is a different thing all together. If you want to argue that 50%+ of married men have no character, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. In addition by many deffinitions of morality, I'd wager all of our presidents have made questionable decisions at one point. During the whole Lewinsky fiasco the other countries of the world were mostly making fun of American foolishness. Clinton lost little to no credibility from it.

Ultimately, possible infidelity is a minor factor, but saying that an affair (that there is absolutely no proof Kerry even had) reflects negatively on Kerry, is considerably more ridiculous then saying that Bush's DUI arrests and use of Cocaine shouldn't be held against him.

[Utah]

If you want to argue that 50%+ of married men have no character, then we'll just have to agree to disagree

That is not what I am saying. but if it were true, I think I would like to choose my president from the other 50%.

I didnt say it meant that they had no character, only that it was one of many factors affecting character and that overall character is important.

Ultimately, possible infidelity is a minor factor, but saying that an affair (that there is absolutely no proof Kerry even had) reflects negatively on Kerry, is considerably more ridiculous then saying that Bush's DUI arrests and use of Cocaine shouldn't be held against him.

No, the cocaine and the DUI arrests very much affect the character makeup of GW.

My overall point on this sub-topic is this: Give the people the information and let them decide if it is relevant to them. What is a heavy weighting factor for you is not going to be the same as for me. Journalists or whoever should not be passing there own judgements about factors and subsequently shielding the info.

Lets take ole slick for example. The topic was a hot topic because it WAS important to a huge chunk of people. If it wasn't, it would have been reported and people would have just shrugged, "so what". That clearly did not happen. This is prima facia evidence that it was a strong weighting factor to many people and thus open game. Because it was unimportant or a non-factor to you does not mean that it should not be a non-factor to others.

Also, and I can't help it, why do Democrats always talk about the sex factor (or on occasion - lying) with Clinton. Why do they never discuss that he was orchestrating an active campaign to destroy a young women before she dropped the goods on him (after of course he dropped the goods on her). Sex is one thing and lying is another. However, destroying an innocent young girl is completely another.

[Cyrus]

"Why can't [the Republicans] simply follow the lead of those nice little Democrats that wouldn't even hurt a fly?"

I keep forgetting, you are not a Republican, right? (Or more to the Right?)

"The Democrats smeared GW over his war record when they knew their claim was patently false and that their last President was a draft dodger."

There are so many things wrong with that sentence, it must be a record. First of all, no one accused Dubya of going anywhere near a war, God forbid. This is about serving and the little s.o.b. didn't even serve! He was out partying mosta the time. Instead of being grateful for getting his sorry ass saved and putting in the time in the Guard, he was skipping the work! Can you believe this? No one remembers him at "his" unit! I'm sure you don't remember all those who served with you but if among them was somen who became a President?? Come on!

Second, where is the falseness in the claims? George Dubya Bush escaped serving in the war by enlisting in the Air National Guard through the good services of friends in high places. Although, the Guard is a highly dangerous place to serve (them Russkies could've attacked any day!), it woulda been somewhat more dangerous for young Dubya to put his booted feet where his mouth was and go kill gooks in 'Nam. Wouldn't ya say?

Third --and most important of all-- the case for Republican hypocrisy : Bill Clinton was opposed to the war in Vietnam. He never bragged that he served or that he supported that war. The man had many character deficiencies but on that issue there is nothing to reprimand him : He was consistent. (Of course, if you supported the Vietnam war, you'd find Clinton's stance unacceptable but we are not talking about Vietnam being right or wrong here.) Compare this with Bush Junior and ll the other conservative chicken hawks : They talk a good talk but the never walk the walk! Dubya is all for the war in Vietnam (hey, there's no war that Dubya wouldn't like!) yet he turns tail and runs like the pathetic deserter that he is, when push comes to shove!

I don't give a damn, for instance, if someone's gay - but when that someone is mouthing off against gays and turns out he is gay himself, then that becomes a big deal. Get it?

"Why didn't Kerry immediately say that he didn't have an affair instead of waiting so long?"

I gwould speculate that Kerry's camp expected the GOP minions to inflict more self-damage through their sorry little smear. They escaped cheaply this time but there will be a next one. I'm waiting for something about John Kerry's youthful days that will be much more "peppery"...

[jokerswild]

Bush simoply proved with his military release that he didn't show in Alabama. He wasn't paid for any time there, and his Texas superiors demanded that he serve 36 days in a hurry at the end of his service to barely meet the minimum requirement. Ol'Yeller Bush is the only awol person to ever steal the office.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
That is not what I am saying. but if it were true, I think I would like to choose my president from the other 50%.


[/ QUOTE ]

So would I but these types seem remarkably few and far between. Maybe Kerry is one of those. No real evidence points to the contrary right now.

[ QUOTE ]
overall character is important.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
Lets take ole slick for example. The topic was a hot topic because it WAS important to a huge chunk of people. If it wasn't, it would have been reported and people would have just shrugged, "so what". That clearly did not happen. This is prima facia evidence that it was a strong weighting factor to many people and thus open game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever wondered why soap operas are so popular? Why do people love to hear gossip? Why is the news on television often filled with fluff pieces on celebrities? Because it's interesting. What? The rich and pwerful have the same problems as the rest of us? How scandelous! How intriguing! The fact that it was widely reported on is not because a huge percentage of the population was offended and wanted to get rid of our immoral president. It was so widely discussed because it was so very dish. The news shoots for ratings, just like any other tv program. I don't doubt that there were more than a few that were upset by the poor morals demonstrated by our president, but probably most of those that really thought about it did not think impeachment was a necessary step. Clinton majorly dropped the ball I agree, but things went much to far to begin with.

[ QUOTE ]
Because it was unimportant or a non-factor to you does not mean that it should not be a non-factor to others.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough and Discussed above to some extent. Everyone has their own opinion. I never did say that it wasn't a factor, just that it was not something I considered critical in a President's ability to govern.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, and I can't help it, why do Democrats always talk about the sex factor (or on occasion - lying) with Clinton. Why do they never discuss that he was orchestrating an active campaign to destroy a young women before she dropped the goods on him (after of course he dropped the goods on her). Sex is one thing and lying is another. However, destroying an innocent young girl is completely another.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to read some more on this allegation. Being a mere undergrad right now, I was on the fringe of caring about politics when all of this broke out so I will admit some ignorance about issues like alleged character assassination. If true it is a deplorable tactic, though not entirely unexpected or unprecedented. The sad fact is that such things are common in politics on both sides. This does not excuse any such action by Clinton, it's merely a comment that such practices are not uncommon and should be addressed on a larger scale.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush simoply proved with his military release that he didn't show in Alabama. He wasn't paid for any time there, and his Texas superiors demanded that he serve 36 days in a hurry at the end of his service to barely meet the minimum requirement. Ol'Yeller Bush is the only awol person to ever steal the office.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are quite mistaken. He was actually released from duty 6 months early to attend Harvard business school after completeing his full obligation of drills in the Guard. Why or how could he secure an early release with an Honorable Discharge without fulfilling his obligation? This is the one question alll the Bush bashers ignore because creative as they are they are unable to come up with a conspiracy theory nor a logical explanation for this. Next he was paid for the time he spent in Alabama. All guardsmen were paid from their "home" base (his was in Texas). The attendance records were recorded in Alabama, forwarded to Texas whereupon the check was issued. How hard is this to figure out?

[Utah]

Ever wondered why soap operas are so popular? Why do people love to hear gossip? Why is the news on television often filled with fluff pieces on celebrities? Because it's interesting. What? The rich and pwerful have the same problems as the rest of us? How scandelous! How intriguing! The fact that it was widely reported on is not because a huge percentage of the population was offended and wanted to get rid of our immoral president. It was so widely discussed because it was so very dish. The news shoots for ratings, just like any other tv program. I don't doubt that there were more than a few that were upset by the poor morals demonstrated by our president, but probably most of those that really thought about it did not think impeachment was a necessary step. Clinton majorly dropped the ball I agree, but things went much to far to begin with

You make some good points here. I think most would agree that if it was a simple affair then impeachment went to far. I would probably be in that camp. However, it was the perjury, the lying to the public, the character assasination, etc. that did it for me.

To the point about character assasination - Clinton had a team whose job was to make Lewinsky seem like a nut job and they set out to destroy her. They were executing this strategy when she dropped the infamous dress on the table.

If she didnt have the dress she would have been completely destroyed by the Clinton team. I don't doubt that many politicians would do the same. However, I wouldn't want to vote for any of them.

Hey, I can understand a guy having an affair. If Pat Benetar Circa 1982 showed up at my front door good to go - well.... However, I would never destroy a person to protect my ass and I am sure there is a huge group of men who would fall in the same camp.

[Utah]

Alger - is that you again posting as Cyrus?

I keep forgetting, you are not a Republican, right? (Or more to the Right?)

As I have said before, I am not a Repulican. Maybe a Libertarian. Can't be a Republican as I disagree with too many things (e.g., I am pro gay marriage, for legalizing drugs, etc,) Most importantly, I think that the Republican notion of everyone having a chance of prosperity is a false one. I also think the Republicans are a little corrupt. However, I think the democrats are extremely corrupt and they have lost there soul. Big difference to be between a liberal and a Democrat. btw - I worked for Walter Mondale's son for several years and I have some insight into party dealings within the Democratic Party of MN. Very scummy indeed.

Now, off the bashing:

First of all, no one accused Dubya of going anywhere near a war, God forbid.
I guessed you missed the one where GWs commander said that he volunteered for Vietnam.

This is about serving and the little s.o.b. didn't even serve! He was out partying mosta the time. Instead of being grateful for getting his sorry ass saved and putting in the time in the Guard, he was skipping the work! Can you believe this? No one remembers him at "his" unit! I'm sure you don't remember all those who served with you but if among them was somen who became a President?? Come on!

Was he a war hero. Of course not. Did he claim to be? Heck, it is quite possible he was on the low end of the scale. So what? Not an issue until the Democrats had Kerry. (who is going to get slaughtered - I'll bet ya $250).

orge Dubya Bush escaped serving in the war by enlisting in the Air National Guard through the good services of friends in high places
Unsubstantiated claim. Prove it. And even so, who cares? Who doesn't use their connections to get what they want in the world?

Bill Clinton was opposed to the war in Vietnam. He never bragged that he served or that he supported that war. The man had many character deficiencies but on that issue there is nothing to reprimand him : He was consistent. (Of course, if you supported the Vietnam war, you'd find Clinton's stance unacceptable but we are not talking about Vietnam being right or wrong here.) Compare this with Bush Junior and ll the other conservative chicken hawks : They talk a good talk but the never walk the walk!

I don't have a terrible problem with Clinton - although he was a weenie. I might have done the same. I just find it funny that the Democrats all of a sudden have found that military service is important.

As far as Chicken Hawks - I saw Bob Dole on T.V. yesterday. It was crazy how he was faking that whole bad arm thing. Lets see - 3 of the last 4 Presidents served in the military. Guess the party of the one who didnt. Bonus question - did this president beat out a war hero as an opponent in that election?

yet he turns tail and runs like the pathetic deserter that he is, when push comes to shove!
Okay, go get your lithium. If your out, I bet you can borrow some from Alger.

I gwould speculate that Kerry's camp expected the GOP minions to inflict more self-damage through their sorry little smear. They escaped cheaply this time but there will be a next one
Hm...who are these minions? I didn't see a single Republican party offical comment on this.

[Utah]

...to see how you contradicted yourself.

bush proved he didn't show in Alabama....barely meet the minimum requirement

Oh, I'm sorry. He met the minimum requirements? Wow, thanks for pointing that out. However, explain how someone is AWOL and at the same time met the requirements?

[Taxman]

Fair enough. I can understand where you're coming from. I agree that the perjury etc. was deffinately deserving of action against Clinton, maybe even impeachment, though not forced removal from office in my opinion. Mainly I don't think things should have been allowed to get to a point where he had that opportunity. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides for this. I'll grant that Clinton probably still is the main person to credit though, for if he had just fessed up, most of his worst problems probably would have just gone away or at least turned into relatively minor contentions of character.

[MMMMMM]

Just for you, Cyrus--and from your very favorite source, too!;-)

Ex-airmen douse rumors over Bush's Guard service
'Serious' pilot flew in NORAD runs, volunteered for Vietnam combat duty
Posted: February 18, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Paul Sperry
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – As the White House struggles to document President Bush's attendance during a National Guard stint in Alabama, conspiracy theories about his military record have gained currency on the Internet. Some are pretty wild – and flat-out false, insist Guardsmen who served with Bush.

One website that's growing in popularity, www.awolbush.com (http://www.awolbush.com), alleges Bush not only shirked his duties at the Alabama base but also his home base in Texas, where it says he sought safe refuge from the Vietnam war in a so-called champagne unit for sons of the political elite. One article it links to suggests widely published photos of Lt. George W. Bush in the cockpit of his F-102 Delta Dagger were staged, and that he never actually flew the supersonic jet fighter.

Another piece rumors that he did fly, only to crash one day after drinking, which is the real reason the Guard grounded him; while yet another speculates he was suspended from flying after skipping a required annual physical to avoid a drug test.

Is any of it true? Not a word, say former Texas Air National Guard pilots who flew formation with Bush during training missions and flight crew who strapped him into his cockpit before flights.

"It's a load of [equine excrement]," said one.

Still, most were at a loss to explain gaps in Bush's pay record while in Alabama, where he transferred to a non-flying unit for about six months in 1972 to work on the political campaign of a family friend. One offered that Guardsmen who performed "equivalent duty" outside their primary base typically weren't paid for those drills, but still earned points or credits toward retirement.

Putting other rumors to rest was easier for the former airmen, though all confess to being staunch Republican friends and supporters of Bush.

# Did Bush duck his duty in Texas?

"I don't know about Alabama, because I wasn't there," said former Staff Sgt. Dan Liles, who was in Bush's Texas unit. "But I know he was at every meeting at Ellington, because I used to strap him in his F-102 and send him off."

Both men were assigned to the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group at Ellington Air Force Base (now Ellington Field) in Houston.

"I was the guy who did the safety walk around, put him up the ladder, made sure he was strapped in," Liles said in an exclusive WorldNetDaily interview. "And I'd always make sure he'd pull his ejection pin, because he'd forget that sometimes. You have to pull the pin out so you can eject. I'd say, 'Lieutenant, show me your pin.' I remember it very clearly."

Liles, who served from 1968 to 1974, says his recollection of Bush is less clear from the point the young officer transferred to Alabama in 1972. Bush, who also started his service in 1968, cleared out of Ellington Field on May 15, 1972.

Bush's commanders at Ellington have said they couldn't recall him coming back from Alabama at all. (In fact, an evaluation report says Bush wasn't observed there from May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1973.)

But his old roommate and fellow pilot – ret. Maj. Dean A. Roome – does recall Bush returning to the base, though he can't narrow down the month.

"I do remember him coming back and being out there awhile and pulling some duty," he told WorldNetDaily. "I can't remember talking to him about Alabama. He did his annual training to get in his points for the year, but as a non-flier."

Pressed for details, Roome was less certain.

"I kind of think he worked around the ops counter to help the supervisor of flying out," he said. "He definitely would have worked in operations, because he was assigned to operations."

The White House, which admits Bush stopped flying after Aug. 1, 1972, when he was suspended, says he performed "odds and ends" to finish out his duty with the Texas unit. There are no records indicating his commanders assigned him another job, however.

He got an early discharge in October 1973 to attend Harvard Business School. Liles and others also got out early.

Even so, Bush still could have been called up to active duty and forced to serve out those remaining six months, say unit contemporaries, although that wasn't likely. The Vietnam War was winding down as he was getting out.

# Did Bush really fly jet fighters?

Not only did he routinely go up in the birds in the early 1970s to help guard the Gulf coast, he participated in NORAD training exercises in Canada, says Roome, who flew several missions with Bush.

"He and I went up as a two ship (team) to North Bay, Ontario, from Ellington. We went up the central United States," he told WorldNetDaily. "He led the first leg, and I led the second. Our second leg was low ceilings at night. We were in formation, and we landed and spent a week up there flying with the Canadians as part of a NORAD exercise" involving possible nuclear attack by Soviet bombers.

Roome says he frequently was paired with Bush.

"We flew a lot of night missions. We flew in weather together," he said. "Our stock-and-trade was formation (flying). We deployed in elements of two, and we'd have to target in the stratosphere, where we had to snap up to (the target) up above 40,000 feet, or we might have one in the weeds, where we'd have to go down and shadow (it)."

As a wingman, Bush tucked in closely and flew smoothly, he says.

"He was one of my favorite people to ride formation with, because he was smooth. He was a very competent pilot," Roome said. "You sort of bet your life on each other in some of those formation missions, and to me it was always a pleasure to fly with George. He was good."

Bush, who logged more than 625 hours in the cockpit, ranked in the top 10 percent of his squadron, according to his performance evaluations.

"Lieutenant Bush is an outstanding young pilot and officer and is a credit to his unit," Lt. Col. Bobby Hodges wrote on May 27, 1971. "This officer is rated in the upper 10 percent of his contemporaries."

Another, written by Maj. William Harris on May 26, 1972, was just as glowing: "Lieutenant Bush is an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer."

Liles, a rock-ribbed Republican who voted for Bush and plans to vote for him again, wonders why previous Bush campaigns didn't trumpet his exemplary flying record.

"I was surprised when he ran for president that his flying record didn't come out," he said, "because it was pretty good."

# Did Bush, a privileged rich kid, get preferential treatment?

The 147th has been dubbed the "champagne unit" by critics because many sons of powerful Texans got assigned there during the Vietnam War, including the late Gov. John Connally's son and both of Sen. Lloyd Bentsen's. Bush's father was a U.S. congressman from Houston at the time. The politically connected James R. Bath, who has Middle Eastern ties, also served in the unit as a pilot. He and Bush went into the oil business together after their Guard duty. Bath has also done business with Lan Bentsen. The late Gov. Connally, moreover, had invested in Bath's aircraft brokerage firm.

While there's no direct evidence Bush's father pulled strings to get him in the unit, a Bush family friend – the late oilman Sidney Adger – allegedly asked the Texas lieutenant governor in 1968 to put in a good word with the Texas Air Guard commander for the younger Bush. And Bush's flight instructor, Col. Maurice Udell, recently admitted Bush was given a special look because his father was a fighter pilot in World War II.

Roome says he can't say for sure political pressure wasn't applied in Austin or Washington, but he didn't see any pressure at the local level.

"I never even heard from his daddy when I roomed with George. I talked to his mama (Barbara) three or four times, but not his daddy," he said. "But they never came by. And his daddy never called the guard there."

Roome, whose family was not politically connected (his father got his start as a roughneck), says the Guard unit wasn't just a place to park rich scions. He said it accepted applicants from all walks of life.

"We didn't have any pull, and I didn't have any problem getting in the Guard," he said, disputing claims of a long wait list that favored the privileged.

However, Liles, who operates a hotel near NASA, says his father, who owned a fishing camp on Lake Houston, did pull some strings to get him in the unit.

"I just barely got in that unit. I was really lucky because I was just about to be drafted," he said. "My daddy knew this guy, and the guy went down there and got me in."

And there appears to have been a double standard applied to Bush.

The Air Force required Roome, for one, to get a waiver for a $25 speeding ticket when he enlisted. But Bush, who like Roome drove a sports car, had two speeding tickets, two collisions and two misdemeanors on his record when he enlisted, and yet he was not required to get any waiver at all.

"I might have had more speeding tickets," Roome offered, sheepishly.

Bush's low score on his pilot aptitude test didn't raise any red flags, either.

"I don't think I scored much better, and anyway, he passed," Roome said. "It's either pass or fail in the military."

Liles, who also doubts "any rules were bent" for Bush, says the young Ivy League officer never acted like he was better than anyone else in the squadron.

"He was one of the few officers out there who would let you walk along beside him. Most officers, you'd have to walk five feet behind them out on the flight line," Liles said. "But Bush wasn't like that. He was probably the nicest guy out there."

Even if Bush did get in because of his name, he sure didn't ask for an easy, safe assignment, points out a childhood friend who served in an administrative capacity at the same unit. Flying the F-102, a one-seater jet, was no cakewalk. In fact, it was downright dangerous.

"I was glad to serve, but I just carried a clipboard around; and I tell you, George had a much riskier occupation there in the Guard than I did," said David Perry, who played junior-high school football with Bush at a private academy in Houston.


The supersonic Convair F-102 Delta Dagger

He says the F-102, weighing in at more than 15 tons at takeoff, was a "flying rock." And it carried just two hour's worth of fuel, with no chance for midair refueling, which meant pilots had to get up and back down relatively quickly or risk running out of fuel.

"That's a risk-taker right there, just going up in that flying rock all the time," said Perry, a staff sergeant who served from 1968 to 1974. "I admire him just for that."

Roome agreed.

"You risked your life going on any mission in that airplane," he said. "It had some engine problems. It had a gear, called a bull gear, that came apart, and that happened a couple of times to our unit. You lose your fuel control, your hydraulics, your electronics, and it flames out and you're basically a glider, because you can't restart it."

Liles, who worked on the flight line, says he had to ground Bush one night after discovering hydraulic fluid leaking from his plane.

There was also a malfunction in the F-102's ejection system that could cause a pilot's chest to be crushed when the seat and parachute were deployed, noted Roome.

Even so, the unit's pilots all avoided Vietnam and combat, right? Actually that's not true either, Roome asserts.

"They're saying we're all a bunch of privileged draft dodgers, and that we got in there to get out of Vietnam," he said. "But that's not the case. In our unit, we had an average of two people overseas in the Vietnam theater continuously from 1968 to 1970."

He says he and other Guard pilots did combat support missions as part of a program codenamed "Palace Alert Southeast Asia."

"If you look closely at the shoulder patches on the uniforms of some of the pilots photographed with George, you can see the Vietnam service patches," said Roome, who served at Ellington from 1967 to 1987.

He recalls Bush and another lieutenant volunteering for the program.

"When I left for it, I told him he ought to look into it, and George was interested in it, because he and (ret. Lt. Col. Fred) Bradley went and saw the colonel and inquired about it," Roome said.

But they were too late. The program was winding down and not accepting any more volunteers, and Bush didn't have enough flight time to qualify anyway. By July 1970, the overseas F-102 program had been canceled altogether, Roome says.

# Did Bush crash a jet because he was drunk?

While his squadron in the early 1970s lost some F-102 jets due to crashes, "George was never involved in any incident or accident," Roome asserted.

In one fatal accident, Lt. Graham Galloway "lost the horizon and just sliced down into the Gulf" during a low-altitude night intercept mission over the sea. A rescue mission turned up only a wing section of his F-102.

Another F-102 flamed-out on takeoff due to engine troubles. The pilot ejected safely.

Liles says Bush, like other pilots, was "apprehensive" about going up in the F-102.

"They're just not that great of a plane, and every pilot I ever sent off was very apprehensive about going up, and Bush was the same way," he said. "But he did it."

As for drinking, many of the pilots in the unit, including Bush, would hit the officers club for beer or bourbon after pulling drills.

A favorite drinking game in the bar was the "dead-bug game."

"The dead-bug game was when somebody would yell out, 'Dead bug!' and everybody had to hit the ground and get on their back with their hands and feet flying in the air like a June bug, and the last guy down had to buy the bar," Roome explained. "Another rule was if you wore your hat in the bar, you had to buy the bar."

While Bush joined in, he was not known as a heavy drinker, Roome says.

"I don't remember seeing George drink very much," Roome said, and he never saw him drink before a drill. (Liles, though, recalls numerous times he and other weekend warriors showed up with "bad hangovers.")

"He was real serious and got to work on time," Roome recalled. "But he was also a lot of fun to be around."

Roome says Bush could often be seen near the runway tossing a football with an Air Force pilot who had played college ball.

"They'd go out and throw footballs on the ramp after the drill was over," he said.

# Did Bush skip his physical for fear he'd fail a drug test?

"That's a big stretch," said Perry, who echoes the White House line that Bush skipped his flight physical because the Alabama assignment didn't require flying.

But after the Guard stripped him of his flying status on Aug. 1, 1972 – two years short of his full Guard commitment – Bush never flew again, even when he returned to Houston.

"He flew for four-plus years and his duty was winding down, and he was going on the Alabama deal, and that's six months that were gone there, and he wasn't going to be a pilot for the rest of his life, so he just figured it was time to wind down," Perry explained.

Also, Roome says Bush would have had to requalify on the F-102 after the six-month lull in Alabama, and he probably didn't feel it was worth the extra training, even though the government had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to train him.

Roome told USA Today in 2002 that the last two years of Bush's Guard service were erratic, and that he was disappointed Bush gave up on flying. He seemed to have lost his enthusiasm for it.

"I think he digressed after awhile," he said. "In the first half, he was gung-ho. Where George failed was to fulfill his obligation as a pilot. It was an irrational time in his life."

Bush hasn't denied using illegal drugs before 1974 – in fact, he's described the late '60s, early '70s as his "wild, exotic days" – but Roome doubts he ever got high during Guard training, though he says he wouldn't know for sure since Bush often split off from the gang at the base and partied with friends in southwest Houston where he grew up.

Interestingly, Maj. James Bath also was suspended from flying in 1972 – one month after Bush, who would become his oil partner not long after they stopped flying. Reason: "Failure to accomplish annual medical examination," according to a report then by Maj. Gen. Fancis S. Greenlief of the National Guard Bureau here.

Bath, who invested $50,000 in Bush's Arbusto firm, became a front man for Saudi investors, including Osama bin Laden's father and brother-in-law, and at one time last decade came under federal investigation for allegedly conspiring to secretly funnel Saudi dollars as part of a Saudi scheme to influence U.S. policy. Among other investments, the fighter pilot bought up airport-related property in Houston for his Saudi clients, securing a 5 percent cut for himself. He also owns a fuel station at Ellington Field, which has been accused of overcharging military aircraft, including Air Force One, millions of dollars.

# Was Bush AWOL in Alabama?

"The media and Democrats are riding a dead horse on this one," Liles, 60, said confidently.

He speculates that Bush initially was excused from duty there to work on his new civilian job nearby, and made up his credits later, as many airline pilots assigned to Ellington had done – which might explain a gap in his pay records from April 16, 1972, to Oct. 28, 1972, and the flurry of payments that followed over the next several months.

Bush insists he reported for duty at the Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Montgomery, although he cannot recall exactly what he did or to whom he reported. The unit commander can't recall Bush reporting to the base.

And there's no paper evidence that he ever reported for duty, not even among the 400 pages of documents the White House released last week.

Roome says any timecards or roll call records with Bush's name on them would not have been kept long and would not likely be archived. They were not part of the records released by the White House, which said the document dump constituted all the Guard records stored on Bush.

A retired Alabama Air National Guard officer says he remembers Bush showing up for each drill period from May 1972 to October 1972. Ret. Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun, a Republican, says Bush read training manuals in his office, where he served as the unit's flight safety officer. He also says they ate lunch together on the base.

Only, records released by the White House contradict Calhoun's account. They don't show Bush getting paid for any drills until October. And he didn't even get authorization to report to Dannelly until September. The White House was at a loss to reconcile the discrepancy.

Roome says it's possible Bush, then 26, didn't get paid for the non-flying "equivalent duty" he allegedly performed from May to October 1972 in Alabama, and only got service points. Records do show Bush getting credit for unspecified service performed in Alabama.

As a part-time Guard pilot, Bush was required to attend a UTA, or uniform training assembly, once a month for a weekend, plus 36 AFTPs, or additional flying training periods. In addition, he had to do two weeks of summer field training. There were also alert orders that lasted one to three days.

Going absent without leave is a serious offense in the military.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37162

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
I just find it funny that the Democrats all of a sudden have found that military service is important.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's just that they find Kerry's miltary record compares quite favorably with Bush's, who's record barely contains a military component. He may have served more time that Clinton, but it's not like we can really call him a veteran. To the Democrats right now electability is very important and thus Kerry's military record is significant because it might attract more people to vote for him. I don't think anyone's suddenly saying that military service is a must for a president.

As far as Bush goes...like our conversation concerning Clinton, what's most important is whether he is being forthright when he defends himself and I constantly get the feeling he's worming around one thing or another. I have no major problem with a president having done little to no military service, but I don't really like it when he tries to mislead me. Nevertheless I don't think his military service or lack thereof is terribly important to me unless he hangs himself trying to defend against various accusations. There are many other faulty aspects of the administration that I can complain about /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
Why or how could he secure an early release with an Honorable Discharge without fulfilling his obligation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, maybe his friends in high places helped him out with that just as they helped get in the national guard to begin with. Personally I don't really care much about this whole stupid situation, it's just more fluff that dodges the real issues. Besides, it seems that Cyrus said he did indeed "meet his obligation," but did so in the easiest possible manner. I don't know the specifics of Bush's service (nor does anyone it seems), but you're post was fallacious.

[hetron]

This weak stuff. You are better off accusing people of being members of Hamas.
[ QUOTE ]

First of all, no one accused Dubya of going anywhere near a war, God forbid.

I guessed you missed the one where GWs commander said that he volunteered for Vietnam.


[/ QUOTE ]

So why didn't he go? The Air Force was starving for pilots for recon missions. He flew an F-102. You are telling me they wouldn't let him?
[ QUOTE ]

I don't have a terrible problem with Clinton - although he was a weenie. I might have done the same. I just find it funny that the Democrats all of a sudden have found that military service is important.


[/ QUOTE ]
They didn't all of a sudden find it important- they are just tired of being bashed as an 'unpatriotic' or 'bleeding heart' party by the Republicans when the fact is they have as many vets on their side as their Republicans do. How long do you want the Dems to watch the Republicans wave the flag and beat their chest without doing anything about it?


[ QUOTE ]

As far as Chicken Hawks - I saw Bob Dole on T.V. yesterday. It was crazy how he was faking that whole bad arm thing. Lets see - 3 of the last 4 Presidents served in the military. Guess the party of the one who didnt. Bonus question - did this president beat out a war hero as an opponent in that election?


[/ QUOTE ]

You know very well no one was referring to Dole. We are talking about Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perlman, and probably a few junior Republican congressman and senators, all of whom a. have minimal, if any military experience, and b. are very cavalier about putting other people's lives on the line, but have never had to do so themselves.

[adios]

Hi hetron,

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
They didn't all of a sudden find it important- they are just tired of being bashed as an 'unpatriotic' or 'bleeding heart' party by the Republicans when the fact is they have as many vets on their side as their Republicans do.

[/ QUOTE ]

To which Republicans are you referring to hetron, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perlman?

If it's any of the above mentioned please provide something objective to back it up. I don't believe any of the above have stated such things as you claim they stated apparently.

Limbaugh and Prager?

Self appointed Republican spokesman? C'mon.

Your next door neighbor? The guy in the poker room who laid a bad beat on you?

I'll bet these are the types of folks you're referring to and if that's the case you're being patently unfair.

[ QUOTE ]
We are talking about Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perlman, and probably a few junior Republican congressman and senators, all of whom a. have minimal, if any military experience, and b. are very cavalier about putting other people's lives on the line, but have never had to do so themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you substantiate your belief that the above mentioned are "very cavalier" about putting other people's lives on the line?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have a terrible problem with Clinton - although he was a weenie. I might have done the same. I just find it funny that the Democrats all of a sudden have found that military service is important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Watch em change their tune if Edwards is the nominee /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no major problem with a president having done little to no military service, but I don't really like it when he tries to mislead me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The piety with which you guys post is amazing and makes for very amusing reading. Do you think Kerry or Edwards have tried to mislead you? How about Clinton /images/graemlins/smile.gif?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, maybe his friends in high places helped him out with that just as they helped get in the national guard to begin with. Personally I don't really care much about this whole stupid situation, it's just more fluff that dodges the real issues. Besides, it seems that Cyrus said he did indeed "meet his obligation," but did so in the easiest possible manner. I don't know the specifics of Bush's service (nor does anyone it seems), but you're post was fallacious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please do as you promised and stop replying to my posts. You never have anything of substance to add, offer only opinion and conjecture with no facts. I understand it is all you know since you are still wet behind the ears. Why don't you restrict your posts to an area in which you have expertise such as cutting classes or perhaps advanced video game theory. Oh yes, did you learn a new word in class this week? Fallacious? Perhaps to you facts are misleading but to others they prove useful.

[Taxman]

The assumptions you make about me given one sentence are amazing and make for amusing reading. Did I ever say I don't think the people you mentioned misled or mislead? I think not. In fact I have clearly said multiple times that people on both sides are in the wrong. The issue at hand was Bush's military service, thus that is what I commented on.

[Taxman]

What a suprise. I'm glad to see that you know how to use a dictionary because I get tired of defining words for people. You're right, I should stop replying to your posts, but I can't help but be vigilant for those who try to misdirect rather than debunk. I am utterly stupified at how you constantly manage to completely avoid responding to any of my arguments and instead resort to cheap shot tactics. Ironically, I did not even make any arguments here other than to offer a possible answer to your statement and point out that you were being misleading (you? Never!). You were implying that Bush must have been a good soldier because he was honorably discharged. You also claimed that there was no other explanation for this fact. That was a fallacious argument. There are other possible explanations and telling people that there aren't is not making a logical point. Just because you believe it you be so doesn't mean that it is. And I never said that you were necessarily wrong, I just pointed out a possibility. I think what you don't like about me is that I locate the areas in which you are weak and ask you to expand upon them. I know that can be an irritating process.

You stated that I should refrain from commenting on areas in which I am not an expert. If this is what we should all do then I must ask you to not respond to posts unless they contain discussions on inflammatory argumentative tactics. You have not once demonstrated a greater degree of knowledge than myself. Every time I ask you to do so, you start attacking me in a most unreasonable manner. I don't doubt there are some areas you know much more about than I, but to completely deny the possibility that I might know more about some things is ridiculous. I am no idiot and I'm sure I have a much more recent experience with theoretical matters than you. Even if you are right and you are much more knowledgeable than I in every area but cutting classes, you still never seem to answer the questions I ask of you. I've managed to reach an understanding with the other conservative posters on this board but you don't seem capable of accepting anyone who has a view other than your own. Is it such a crime to disagree with you? Apparently so because you don't seem able to respond to criticism in a constructive manner.

[hetron]

Adios

Why am I being patently unfair about this issue? The Republicans have become masters of this stuff. The top level guys NEVER get involved in the dirty part of politics. Dirt on the opposition is always slung by the Limbaugh/Savage/Prager types, the Democrats respond in kind, and then it is the Dem's fault for "playing politics".

Don't you think that having people like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Savage blast away every day is making the Dem's sensitive about the patriotism and military issues?

So no, I don't think you will find any direct quotes from the Bush administration calling the Dems unpatriotic. But you will get ads from the RNC in Iowa before the caucus suggesting that not supporting Bush in his "war on terror" is unpatriotic. And you do get your J.D. Hayworths (R-Ariz) suggesting that those who protested against the Bush administration's policies "think they are being citizens of the world instead of thinking of themselves as Americans".


[ QUOTE ]

Would you substantiate your belief that the above mentioned are "very cavalier" about putting other people's lives on the line?


[/ QUOTE ]

You wouldn't call having a policy of invading sovereign nations preemptively cavalier? You know, when you invade places, people die.

[Utah]

I really got a kick out of this post.

Come on. Both sides play dirty pool. Always have and always will. That being said, I personally think that the Democrats are much more blatant about it. I mean, when you have the party openly embracing Michael Moore to call Bush a deserter. Come on.

Don't you think that having people like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Savage blast away every day is making the Dem's sensitive about the patriotism and military issues?
Too funny. I laugh at this every time this is brought up, even though it has been discussed a zillion times.

Democrat: Bush is hilter! Rumsfield is the devil! The U.S. is evil! America kills women and children indiscriminately! Republicans are bastard war mongers! Republicans kill for oil! Viva la France!
Rupublican: You are unpartiot.
Democrat Well, the nerve of you! How dare you resort to name calling! I have never been more insulted! Did I mention that you are a bastard war war monger and your leader is a deserter to boot?

Oh the Dems. like free speech so they can spew all the vile they want. But god forbid someone uses free speech to call them scum.

And you do get your J.D. Hayworths (R-Ariz) suggesting that those who protested against the Bush administration's policies "think they are being citizens of the world instead of thinking of themselves as Americans".
You don't think that is true? hm.....

You wouldn't call having a policy of invading sovereign nations preemptively cavalier? You know, when you invade places, people die.
Um..no. I would not. Under your logic then every military action would be cavalier. You know, many times when you don't invade even more people die?

[adios]

Hi Hetron,

[ QUOTE ]
Why am I being patently unfair about this issue? The Republicans have become masters of this stuff. The top level guys NEVER get involved in the dirty part of politics. Dirt on the opposition is always slung by the Limbaugh/Savage/Prager types, the Democrats respond in kind, and then it is the Dem's fault for "playing politics".

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it a full moon tonight or something? Are you stating that there's a tacit agreement between top level Republicans and Limbaugh for instance to trash the Democrats? HaaaaaHaaaaaaaHaaaaaaaaaaHaaaaaaaaaa. That is truly a funny one. What would you expect the Bush administration to do, come out and disavow itself from Rush Limbaugh comments? Surely you can't be serious. This is absolutely hilarious. Just tune Limbaugh out if you don't like him. He's no more connected to the administration than you are for crying out loud. It's truly funny that the Democrats decry the Republicans for guilt by association tactics and then the Democrats come with this hooey that Limbaugh and his ilk somehow represent the administration let alone mainstream Republican party views.

[ QUOTE ]
You wouldn't call having a policy of invading sovereign nations preemptively cavalier? You know, when you invade places, people die.

[/ QUOTE ]

My position is that the Hussein regime was illegitimate due to his illigetimate seizure of power and subsequent subjection of the Iraqi people to genocide and virtual enslavement. When genocidal despots seize control illegitimately people die. Have you been reading anything about Iraqi gratitude for their liberation or their excitement over democracy?

Are you going to tell me that any despot that seizes power by any means doesn't need to be removed due to the soveignty of that nation? That's truly a remarkable position if you embrace that position. Also how many Democrats in Congress that didn't serve in the military voted for the resolution to liberate Iraq? Why no such condemnation for them for their apparent cavalier viewpoints?

[adios]

Points well taken and I agree that I misinterpreted what you stated. I apologize. I've been reading too many nutty posts on this forum lately and yours certainly are not nutty.

[Taxman]

Thank you. Sorry for coming out a little harsh, but sometimes I "go on tilt" a bit when engaged in agressive arguments elsewhere.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
when you have the party openly embracing Michael Moore

[/ QUOTE ]

I highly doubt this is true. The same argument applies as adios' about Limbaugh and the Republicans. Michael Moore isn't even really a Democrat and he is much less bombastic than most Repbulican commentators (and more agressive than most Democrats). Nevrtheless, you are right in that neither side is clean by any stretch of the imagination.

[George Rice]

Another post regarding the awol charge which doesn't address the five month period.

[ QUOTE ]
Still, most were at a loss to explain gaps in Bush's pay record while in Alabama, where he transferred to a non-flying unit for about six months in 1972 to work on the political campaign of a family friend. One offered that Guardsmen who performed "equivalent duty" outside their primary base typically weren't paid for those drills, but still earned points or credits toward retirement.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"I don't know about Alabama, because I wasn't there," said former Staff Sgt. Dan Liles, who was in Bush's Texas unit.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
He speculates that Bush initially was excused from duty there to work on his new civilian job nearby, and made up his credits later, as many airline pilots assigned to Ellington had done – which might explain a gap in his pay records from April 16, 1972, to Oct. 28, 1972, and the flurry of payments that followed over the next several months.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly! Basically what I was saying. The fact that he was paid doesn't mean he was there during those five months. He could have made the time up later. But if he was excused to work on a civilian job, wouldn't he remember it? Five months!


[ QUOTE ]
The Air Force required Roome, for one, to get a waiver for a $25 speeding ticket when he enlisted. But Bush, who like Roome drove a sports car, had two speeding tickets, two collisions and two misdemeanors on his record when he enlisted, and yet he was not required to get any waiver at all.


[/ QUOTE ]


Just as most everyone suspects. He recieved special considerations to get into the Guard. Does anyone think he wasn't pushed to the front of the list too?

[ QUOTE ]
A retired Alabama Air National Guard officer says he remembers Bush showing up for each drill period from May 1972 to October 1972. Ret. Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun, a Republican, says Bush read training manuals in his office, where he served as the unit's flight safety officer. He also says they ate lunch together on the base.

Only, records released by the White House contradict Calhoun's account. They don't show Bush getting paid for any drills until October. And he didn't even get authorization to report to Dannelly until September. The White House was at a loss to reconcile the discrepancy.


[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. If anyone believes a witness who can vouch that another person showed up for "each drill period from May 1972 to October 1972.", they must have holes in their head. It's over thirty years ago. Is this an over zealous witness who wants to help Bush, or is there a conspiracy here? That's a question that needs to be answered.

Another post that doesn't explain the five month gap. Tsk Tsk six-M's. Get with the program.

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it a full moon tonight or something? Are you stating that there's a tacit agreement between top level Republicans and Limbaugh for instance to trash the Democrats?

[/ QUOTE ]

There doesn't need to be. Rush and the gang know the talking points.

A couple of weeks ago Sean Hannity was in D.C. interviewing many in the administration (Rumsfeld, Powell, others) on his radio show. All pats on the back for Sean. If they don't agree with his opinions they should speak up. Or if they chose not to, they shouldn't appear on his show. They know it gives the appearance of agreeing with him, even if they don't.

And speaking of guilt by association, what about that picture with Fonda and Kerry in it. The Conservative mouth pieces got a lot of mileage out of that. Depending on the lens on the camera, Kerry could have been 50-100 feet away from Fonda. And I think that was before her trip to Nam. If so, Kerry would have no reason to avoid her anyway.

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
However, explain how someone is AWOL and at the same time met the requirements?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Met the requirements" doesn't specify when the requirements were met. Bush could have been AWOL and made up his requirements after returning to duty. He might have had permission to be away legitamately, or had strings pulled to allow him to make up the time after being AWOL. We don't know. He won't say. And knowing that many will assume the worst, he still doesn't explain the five month absense (I did my duty. I met the requirements. Evasive!). That suggests that he'd rather have the assumptions believed than the truth known. Why? Is it that bad?

[MMMMMM]

"Lol. If anyone believes a witness who can vouch that another person showed up for "each drill period from May 1972 to October 1972.", they must have holes in their head. It's over thirty years ago. Is this an over zealous witness who wants to help Bush, or is there a conspiracy here? That's a question that needs to be answered."

No more incredible than those expecting Bush to recall every month and every activity thirty years ago.

"Another post that doesn't explain the five month gap. Tsk Tsk six-M's. Get with the program."

Did I say it explained anything? I copied the article in the interest of additional information, and because I know Cyrus loves WorldNetDaily.

Don't take this the wrong way, George, but I think you may have a wee bit of an attitude problem.

[hetron]

Both sides DO play dirty pool.

[ QUOTE ]

That being said, I personally think that the Democrats are much more blatant about it. I mean, when you have the party openly embracing Michael Moore to call Bush a deserter. Come on.
[/q]

The Democrats are more blatant about it? When you have people like Michael Savage calling liberals "scumbags" you want to get any more blatant? Only Wesley Clark embraced Michael Moore and there is still only flimsy proof that Bush fulfilled his duties in the military roof (A Dental record? Gee, at least we know the dude has clean teeth!)

True progressives have no problems with free speech, either for them or against them. Saying that the Democrats policies are foolish or wrong is within the context of solid debate. Painting them as unpatriotic patsies, when many of them answered the bell despite having personal reservations about combat duty, is not.

[ QUOTE ]

And you do get your J.D. Hayworths (R-Ariz) suggesting that those who protested against the Bush administration's policies "think they are being citizens of the world instead of thinking of themselves as Americans".
You don't think that is true? hm.....


[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think it is true. A lot of people think Bush's policies are wrong. That doesn't mean they don't think of themselves as Americans. Explain to me why you think Hayworth is right.

[ QUOTE ]

You wouldn't call having a policy of invading sovereign nations preemptively cavalier? You know, when you invade places, people die.
Um..no. I would not. Under your logic then every military action would be cavalier. You know, many times when you don't invade even more people die?


[/ QUOTE ]

Every military action WOULD NOT be cavalier because the military I was under the impression that are military is for national defense, not preemptive invasions of nations with no history of aggression against us.
Get the difference?

[hetron]

With the whole Limbaugh/GOP thing.

I agree with you about Limbaugh not being an official spokesperson for the party. I never said he was. I just was trying to say that Limbaugh and his ilk do much of the dirty work that probably used to go on at a party level. If you don't think the GOP thinks of right wing media as an asset, you are kidding yourself. I mean, how "fair and balanced" can Fox News be when they have Roger friggin Ailes running the show?

My position is that the Hussein regime was illegitimate due to his illigetimate seizure of power and subsequent subjection of the Iraqi people to genocide and virtual enslavement. When genocidal despots seize control illegitimately people die. Have you been reading anything about Iraqi gratitude for their liberation or their excitement over democracy?
[ QUOTE ]

Are you going to tell me that any despot that seizes power by any means doesn't need to be removed due to the soveignty of that nation? That's truly a remarkable position if you embrace that position. Also how many Democrats in Congress that didn't serve in the military voted for the resolution to liberate Iraq? Why no such condemnation for them for their apparent cavalier viewpoints?


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. Let's say the US has a doctrine of removing people who "seized" power. Are we going to invade every country with rigged elections? That's a whole lot of nations!
And by the way, when did we decide to embark on this policy of removing dictators? The answer is, never. It never existed. We just remove people we don't like. It has nothing to do with whether or not they are dictators. The US was friendly with Noreaga in Panama until we decided we didn't like him. Then the US staged a coup.

Other inconsistencies of this "remove all undemocratic leaders doctrine":

1. We destroyed the insane Hussein because we were scared of WMD's. Yet North Korea, our leader wants to negotiate with. Is Kim a brutal dictator like Hussein? Yes! Has he killed many of his own people? Yes! Has he tried to acquire nukes? Yes! But yet Bush wants to negotiate with him, rather than bomb him. Explain this to me.

2. Haiti. US helped to install Aristide in power. Aristide to proved to be as corrupt and undemocratic as the Duvaliers. Yet the US has "warned" people about trying to overthrow him? Why? He is not very democratic, and very corrupt. Why should he stay in power.

3. Venezuela. Hugo Chavez is the current leader of the country. I'm fairly sure the was democratically elected (though I'm not sure what degree of foul play was involved in the election). He is very critical of the US, has socialist leanings, and likes to hang out with Fidel. Yet he seems to be the people's choice in his country. Why then did the US hint that they would be in favor of a coup to overthrow him? If we have a doctrine of supporting democratically elected leaders, shouldn't we support them whether or not these leaders are critical of US?

Please address these points. I'm awaiting your response.

PS As for the Dems who supported the war in Iraq and are now turning tale, I agree with you that these people are truly playing politics and have sold their soul to the devil, so to speak. A lot of idealistic progressives gave up on the Democratic party a while back.

[MMMMMM]

I think a fundamental problem with the use of the argument "we can't remove all dictators who seized power illegitimately" is that people tend to use it to imply that we shouldn't remove any.

Since when, logically speaking, does not being able to correct all errors or fix all problems imply that no errors should be corrected or that no problems should be fixed? It's a rather asinine argument, isn't it?

Some other examples of faulty moral logic:

- I can't give enough money to charity to alleviate all suffering, or even to alleviate a lot of suffering--so it is pointless to give any

- We can't make the world a perfect place, so why bother trying to make it a better place

- We can't depose all tyrants, so why depose any

- If we have to arbitrarily choose which tyrants to depose, that is unfair: so therefore it is better to not depose any tyrants

- If we can depose a tyrant and at the same time benefit ourselves as well as the heretofore oppressed peoples, we shouldn't do it because we are benefiting ourselves and because we can't do the same for all tyrannized peoples

- If we stand to gain by doing good, that good is thereby diminished

To me all of the above appear obviously fallacious, and I wonder greatly that they do not appear obviously fallacious to many others.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
With the whole Limbaugh/GOP thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you about Limbaugh not being an official spokesperson for the party.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I never said he was.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah you did sort of IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
I just was trying to say that Limbaugh and his ilk do much of the dirty work that probably used to go on at a party level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok you're entitled to your opinion. I assume your talking about criticizing for being unpatriotic.

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't think the GOP thinks of right wing media as an asset, you are kidding yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

What right wing media hetron? Rush Limbaugh, I doubt it.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, how "fair and balanced" can Fox News be when they have Roger friggin Ailes running the show?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok which Fox show do you consider biased? To my knowledge Rush Limbaugh doesn't contribute to Fox News and I can't recall one commentator blasting opponents of the intervention in Iraq as being unpatriotic. Can you cite some examples?


[ QUOTE ]
Ok. Let's say the US has a doctrine of removing people who "seized" power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not because they don't.

[ QUOTE ]
Are we going to invade every country with rigged elections? That's a whole lot of nations!

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't have that policy but as a general rule the current administration prefers diplomatic solutions.


[ QUOTE ]
And by the way, when did we decide to embark on this policy of removing dictators?

[/ QUOTE ]

What policy are you talking about? You referred to the sovereignty of the Iraq and I stated that sovereignty was meaningless with illegitimate governments.

[ QUOTE ]
The answer is, never. It never existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok.

[ QUOTE ]
We just remove people we don't like.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope.

[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with whether or not they are dictators.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you distort and misrepresent my point. Let's take Cuba for instance. Does Castro have legitimacy as a dictator? In my mind he does since his ascention to power in Cuba sprung from a popular revolution. I believe that he represents the will of the majority in Cuba for the most part.

[ QUOTE ]
The US was friendly with Noreaga in Panama until we decided we didn't like him. Then the US staged a coup.

[/ QUOTE ]

So? It least this happened more recently than Viet Nam.

[ QUOTE ]
Other inconsistencies of this "remove all undemocratic leaders doctrine":

[/ QUOTE ]

What doctrine are you talking about? The one you made up?

[ QUOTE ]
1. We destroyed the insane Hussein because we were scared of WMD's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Partly. The problem is this. The USA got a wakeup call on 9/11. The Bush administration and many Republican leader believe that if WMD fall into the hands of terrorists they'll be employed against USA citizens to cause as much destruction and death as possible. The goal is to keep terrorists from acquiring WMD and it should be obvious that eliminating terrorists and their supporters including those states that sponsor terrorists is means towards that end. Those nations that have WMD and have a high liklihood of sympathizing with terrorism at least have to be dealt with to minimize the threat.

The Democrats in my mind seem to be saying two things regarding Iraq now:

1) Iraq was not a nation that sponsored terrorism.

2) Iraq was not a threat to US security.

Prior to the Iraqi intervention there are numerous quotes by leading Democrats describing the dangers Iraq posed. I understand the political opportunism involved in what the Democrats are stating now. The bigger issue though is what do the Democrats really believe about terrorism and the threat of WMD falling into the hands of terrorists. It seems to me that the Democratic party leadership has a position that this has a very low probability of occuring. Furthermore that terrorist incidents like 9/11 should be treated as more or less a crime and not as an attack on the USA. In short terrorism directed toward the USA is a relatively minor problem.


[ QUOTE ]
Yet North Korea, our leader wants to negotiate with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Different situation, China is an important nation in this process but yeah the Bush administration is seeking the diplomatic route.

[ QUOTE ]
Is Kim a brutal dictator like Hussein? Yes! Has he killed many of his own people? Yes! Has he tried to acquire nukes? Yes! But yet Bush wants to negotiate with him, rather than bomb him. Explain this to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you prefer diplomatic negotiations rather than military actions? The Bush administration felt the diplomatic route had run it's course with Hussein. Lot's of developing stories how Hussein bribed UN officials, French officials, and German officiasl as well. In my mind the skepticism of the UN process was justified but then I think the UN is a worthless organization.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Haiti. US helped to install Aristide in power. Aristide to proved to be as corrupt and undemocratic as the Duvaliers. Yet the US has "warned" people about trying to overthrow him? Why? He is not very democratic, and very corrupt. Why should he stay in power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think Aristide has WMD? Your original point was that invading a sovereign nation was reprehensible. Furthermore since Iraq was a sovereign nation the US action was reprehensible. I responded that the sovereignty of Iraq was meaningless with an illegitimate government. You have distorted my position into one that states sovereignty is meaningless if a dictator is in control and I showed you how Cuba's Castro claim has a claim to being a legitimate government.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Venezuela. Hugo Chavez is the current leader of the country. I'm fairly sure the was democratically elected (though I'm not sure what degree of foul play was involved in the election). He is very critical of the US, has socialist leanings, and likes to hang out with Fidel. Yet he seems to be the people's choice in his country. Why then did the US hint that they would be in favor of a coup to overthrow him? If we have a doctrine of supporting democratically elected leaders, shouldn't we support them whether or not these leaders are critical of US?

[/ QUOTE ]

Same points I made regarding Castro.

[ QUOTE ]
Please address these points. I'm awaiting your response.

[/ QUOTE ]

You now have it my friend.

[ QUOTE ]
PS As for the Dems who supported the war in Iraq and are now turning tale, I agree with you that these people are truly playing politics and have sold their soul to the devil, so to speak. A lot of idealistic progressives gave up on the Democratic party a while back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Political oppotunism is not endemic to one party only sad to say. Republicans have this problem as well.

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
No more incredible than those expecting Bush to recall every month and every activity thirty years ago.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. But a five month gap is not something a reasonable person would forget. There seems to be no problem providing documents for the other time periods. And I think my point is valid regarding the witness.

[ QUOTE ]
Did I say it explained anything? I copied the article in the interest of additional information, and because I know Cyrus loves WorldNetDaily.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Ex-airmen douse rumors over Bush's Guard service

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you were offering it as proof that the rumors had been disproven. From my point of view, it doesn't.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't take this the wrong way, George, but I think you may have a wee bit of an attitude problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry I come off that way. I feel the same way about some of the other posters here. Also, I thought I was responding to another poster that I've previously addressed this issue with. That may explain it, in part. My mistake. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[Cyrus]

"I worked for Walter Mondale's son for several years and I have some insight into party dealings within the Democratic Party of MN. Very scummy indeed."

I recognize and accept that politics are indeed corrupt and the more one stays in politics the more corrupt he/she gets. But, still, there is still something to be made out of and through politics. But Democrats being more corrupt than Republicans? That would take some effort to prove!.. The modern GOP belongs to big business heart and soul.

"GWs commander said that he volunteered for Vietnam."

Thanks for the chuckle. (You are not serious, are you?? If the little weasel wanted to "volunteer for Vietnam" there were a million ways he could get his sorry ass over there. He wouldn't weasel his way into the Guard, for starters.)

"Who cares? Who doesn't use their connections to get what they want in the world? I might have done the same. I find it funny that the Democrats all of a sudden have found that military service is important."

We should all care. And you, with the Libertarian inclination, more than some. The reason is that he is being a hypocrite. When someone is gay, you don't rightly care. But when someone mouths off against gays (and gets political mileage out of that, in the bargain) and then turns out he is gay himself, you goddamn right you should care! You should raise hell!

Same with war and military record. Dubya was all talk and then when the time came to put himself on the line he turned tail. Clinton, at least, never made an issue of any "pro-Vietnam" position or boasted about his military service.

"3 of the last 4 Presidents served in the military. Guess the party of the one who didnt."

Clinton did not serve. Dubya did not serve. Bush senior did serve and was a war hero. Regan did not serve - unless you are calling "service" what Ronnie did in uniform. Check your facts again.

But here's a direct and explicit challenge for you : Which of the two, Democratic or Republican, is the Party that has the more military veterans in Congress?

"Kerry... is going to get slaughtered - I'll bet ya $250."

Define "slaughtered" and we might be on to something more interesting than all this postin'.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With the whole Limbaugh/GOP thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you about Limbaugh not being an official spokesperson for the party.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I never said he was.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah you did sort of IMO.

No I didn't. Find me the quote where I said he was an official GOP spokesperson.

[ QUOTE ]
I just was trying to say that Limbaugh and his ilk do much of the dirty work that probably used to go on at a party level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok you're entitled to your opinion. I assume your talking about criticizing for being unpatriotic.

Sure, they do that. Among calling whoever they don't like "scumbag Clintonoid bleeding heart criminiliberals".

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't think the GOP thinks of right wing media as an asset, you are kidding yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

What right wing media hetron? Rush Limbaugh, I doubt it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, whatever you say. I guess that's why George Bush Sr invited him to the White House when he was in office. I guess that's why Ronald Reagan called him "the leading voice for conservativism in US".

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, how "fair and balanced" can Fox News be when they have Roger friggin Ailes running the show?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Ok which Fox show do you consider biased? To my knowledge Rush Limbaugh doesn't contribute to Fox News and I can't recall one commentator blasting opponents of the intervention in Iraq as being unpatriotic. Can you cite some examples?


[/ QUOTE ]

They are all slanted, whether it is O'Reilly's show or Hannity and Colmes. I do remember Sean Hannity implying certain anti-Iraq people as being unpatriotic. I'll see if I can find some exact quotes somewhere.

I'm tired, so I'll respond to the second part of this post tomorrow.