VICIOUS, BLOODTHIRSTY BASTARDS

Voting to send the troops and then voting against arming them might be a place to start. His behavior after his admirable service in Vietnam doesn't exactly conjure up an image of an ass-kicker either. And I, for one, want some more terrorist ass kicked. I think the pivot point is more "will" than "can" and I believe its a safe assumption that Bush will kick more asses than Kerry (if elected). I am not terribly impressed with either candidate (and in truth; haven't been terribly impressed with any since Ross Perot), but I do think Bush is a better fit for my ideology than Kerry would be.

Kerry is a 'let's get permission from the UN' guy, and even now I don't remember a single recent speech where he has condemned terrorists. For that reason, I would give Bush the definitive edge for being more committed to fighting terrorism.

I also think, Kerry is more a 'I respect the rest of the world' person, while this does not seem to have any importance in the ideology of Bush.

really Foxy; you think any sane human being is in favour of terrorism? I think not; avoiding redundancy is a lesson Bush would do well to learn (sorry, i understand roll: ); his wantonly repetitive ramblings have the rest of the world's eyes rolling, every time he opens his "your with us or against us!" mouth. :

I would give bush more of an edge for just treating everything like he's a hammer, whether dealing with a nail or not......a blustering bully. The fact that he's at war with other "f*#k everything but me and mine" leaders does not change the fact that he's the same as the people he's fighting at his core. Maintaining wealth and power, that's all it's ever been about since time began.

Unfortunately he and other leaders like him run up the karmic bills but when they come due people like Paul Nelson, Nicholas Berg and so many others pay them.

How subtle. Not. Are you trying to say that Kerry's position is to not annoy terrorists and just "take" it? That's just ridiculous.

I think your statement is about as accurate as this one:

If more voters think going out of our way to not annoy terroists makes us safer, Kerry will be elected in November. If more people think annoying terrorists will make us safer, Bush will be elected in November.

I can accept the way you wrote it too Kicky.

Bogowo writes:


I'm sure that those who don't like Bush see it that way. I can pull just as much repetitive sloganeering out of Kerry's speeches, but that probably doesn't irritate those who dislike Bush.

Well then I think we should get our most annoying people out there to serve the country. How about we send Bobcat Goldthwait to Iraq or Afghanistan. He's really annoying.

Oooo good idea Kicky. Or lets send him as chief interrogator to deal with the terrorists we have in custody. Somebody would figure it violated the Geneva convention or whatever, but it could work.

Gilbert Gottfreid!

No, seriously. I've talked to a few repubicans (one here, even) who are able to admit that they understand where Kerry was coming from on that one, Bill. He didn't vote against arming the troops but against all the Pork in the bill, as they all should have. If one cares so much about this issue, I suggest calling your reps and telling them to stop putting partisan pork in all the important bills and pushing them through at midnight! Personally, I call Kerry's move principled!
Frist could sponsor a bill saying we've got Osama, shall we kill him? and add to it something saying Bush will be king for life and we'll all tithe 10% of our incomes to him, and would you bitch if senators refused to pass that one?
Things are not as simple as they seem.
Personally, I feel what Kerry did after VietNam was pretty brave, as do thousands of veterans. Not to mention, he at least put in his time fighting for the country.
And Foxfyre, nobody suggested asking for permission. There's another buzz sentence you guys use! Thankfully, many are not taken in by it! What might be the difference is that perhaps Kerry will not be so underhanded, creating monsters that we then provoke against ourselves!
Sometimes you guys do sound like grade schoolers.

I hear you Suzy... But being nonpartisan myself I have no partisan rep to call on. I couldn't agree more that everything should be separated and this "business as usual" pork nonsense should be criminal. But arming our troops as they go off to defend our country is the wrong time to make such a point. John Kerry has had no shortage of opportunities to address the problem... why choose that one?

I've stated before many times that I respect Kerry's service record, and even the fact that he stood up for what he believed in after the war... I just happen to disagree with his actions. Since then, it's tough to put him on a firm position about anything.

Your last paragraph doesn't make much sense, Suzy. Bush didn't create these monsters. He is dealing with them and after 8 years of letting them run amuck it's not a moment too soon. Hopefully it isn't too late.

Bill, His father's administration with Reagan (and many of the current cabinet) did. The world might be a very different place today if they dealt with things a bit differently. This does not appear to be a successful way to clean up this mess. I don't feel safe from terrorist attack. I feel more vulnerable evry month.

So you're holding Bush accountable for what his father did? And, since Kerry's father was never President, Kerry will not be so underhanded. Okay, I get it now.

Um, NO. My point is that he's continuing the "legacy" of wrong-doing. I'm suggesting the possibility of being straight with people; enemies, allies and fellow Americans. It would be oh so refreshing! There is no possibility of playing it straight with Bush as president. He's a spoiled child who has never made a personal sacrifice and probably never will.
Man, I'm looking at him on TV right now talking about his opposition to torture, and the man can't even manage to look sincere! He looks like he's trying to hold in a good chuckle, I swear to God.
I wonder if his attitude alone is bringing more hatred upon the US?

Okay, I'm wrong on this one. It wasn't that it was a pork-laden bill, but rather that Kerry (and many others) were making a stand on principle. Seeing as Bush sent men off to war and cut taxes for the wealthy before figuring out the troops were not well protected (not too smart a move, that, but hey, he was in a hurry to get saddam. I mean Osama) it was then, in the midst of war, that he figured he'd better ask for more money. the appropriation of $87billion included about 1/3 of that amount specifically for body armor. Many felt that Bush should, instead of asking us to pay another 87 billion, roll back some of his tax cuts to pay for it. Does anybody realize those "tax cuts" are null and void anyway? How the hell do you think this war is getting paid for? Oh, yeah, our children. Never mind! So anyway, bush said no way was he gonna take money from the rich just to pay for middle-class people's sons to die in Iraq, so Kerry and many other senators including republicans, voted against it. Does that mean Kerry doesn't care about the troops? No. It does mean that Kerry realizes that this war shouldn't bankrupt America. Could another bill have been introduced for the body armor and get passed? hell yeah. While researching this topic, I did some surfing. Found some interesting stuff, including comments from another forum. read on...

Kerry was referring to a measure he co-sponsored that would have provided the $87 billion while also temporarily reversing Bush's tax cuts for those making $400,000 a year or more. That measure was rejected 57-42.

John Kerry opposed a red inked, blank check on Bush's failed Iraq policy
it was also a vote that took place long after they already committed the troops, long after they should have had the equipment that they needed.

Voting this bill down in no way would have prevented other bills with different terms from being introduced on the same issue, that would have perhaps better addressed both the needs of the military and sound financial planning for our government.

It seems clear to me that although Kerry felt he could not in good conscience vote for this bill, he would not have opposed the introduction of a bill allocating funds for our troops which made different provisions for the source of those funds.
Ummm, I get it - the quagmire is Kerry's Fault! Of course, how dumb of me - this was obviously a pinko plot to embarrass poor George, who of course is shocked - just shocked - that all those troops were in 'Nam (ooops, 'Raq) WITHOUT FLAK VESTS due to Rummy's running the war on the cheap.

I'd like to know why Bush sent our troops into battle underarmored, and underpaid in the first place. It is hypocritical of this administration to allege that Kerry has tried to deprive troops of such things, when Bush did not previously ask or provide for them,
prior to starting the war.Kerry didn't vote no with the idea that he would deprive troops of need supplies and material. I don't know if he even expected to win that vote. What's more, he didn't send
in our troops undersupplied, and underpaid, with false impressions of what they would come up against, and how the Iraqi people would react.

I wonder how many flak jackets for the boys could've been bought with what it cost to land Flyboy One on that carrier, including the oh-so-stylish flight suit.

What I see is a pattern of insufficient preparation, research, and rationale on the part of the president. It's part of the reason we needed such supplementals in the first place. Why? Because Bush underestimated the cost of the invasion and occupation.

What makes this worse, is that Bush is forcing the American taxpayer to pay more for war.

Bush didn't raise revenues to pay for that 87 billion dollars. He just piled it on top of the other economy-sapping debt. When the time comes, it won't just be 87 billion, it will be that, and the interest on the treasury bonds issued to pay for the debt.

Who's really delivering the Tax Relief here?

It was fiscally irresponsible to spend so much without scaling back the tax cut for the wealthy.

Or to look at it another way, Bush thought tax cuts for the wealthy to be more important than body armor for the troops! That's the bottom line.

Okay. I'll ask. How did you get there?

How do you even have to ask that? Bush sent our troops into battle underarmored in the first place. If he was unaware of that, that in itself is pretty bad. If he was aware of it, and refused to rescind the tax cuts temporarily, that's worse! Now that I've done a little research on it, I remember this vote better, and he had ample opportunity to do the right thing. It didn't even need to come to a vote, really, he could have just done what he shoulda! "My fellow Americans, I made a grave mistake and we all need to pull together in the spirit of cooperation and give back those tax cuts temporarily to protect our troops. Or keep your money and don't protect our troops, and we'll blame it on somebody with more common sense!"

You're killing me Suz.
Bush is condemned for not trying to arm the troops better sooner.
Kerry gets a pass for trying to block the measure later?
This playing field doesn't appear very level.
I think we should probably just shake hands in agreement about pork!