From: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/25829.htm
So you really want the column addressed, Brandon? First of all, if it's written by somebody like Morris, it's not something I would choose to read. I already know what it will say and that it will be stupid. But if you insist:THE BAGEL CANDIDACY
By Dick Morris
July 30, 2004 -- I LOVED Bill Clinton's speech. I was inspired by John Edwards. Bar ack Obama thrilled me. Max Cleland made me grow as a person as I heard him . . .
And then there was John Kerry.
(Whose speech was very good!)
All around him was eloquence but, in the center of the bagel, there was a speech that was a letdown.
And did he just tell 140,000 men and women fighting in Iraq that they are there because of a mistake?
He doesn't need to "tell them", most already know, even better than he does!Really? So BinLaden is in one of those countries?
I honor his service in Vietnam. I think a man who knows what it is like to fight in a war is a good person to have as commander-in-chief. John Kerry is a good man. But what else is there?
Last time I checked, Sen. John Kerry was 60 years old. But to listen to his speech last night at the Democratic National Convention, you would think he was still in his 20s.
He opened up his talk with a lengthy and evocative description of his childhood and what it was like growing up in divided Berlin. He told us of the "goose bumps" he remembers getting when the band struck up "Stars and Stripes Forever."
Then, after this long rendition of his childhood, he tells us at length what it was like to serve in Vietnam for the four months that he was there. So far, so good.
But then he spent only about one minute talking about what he has done since.
Beyond a brief allusion to his efforts for crime victims and to prosecute crimes against women as an assistant district attorney, his support for Clinton's plan for extra cops and a balanced budget and a reference to his work with John McCain on the POW and MIA issue in Vietnam, that's it.
What did this man do as an adult? What happened during his service as Michael Dukakis' lieutenant-governor in Massachusetts and in his 20 years in the United States Senate?
Jeez, look it up! How long does this guy want the speech to be? He's already been nominated, because people already know these things about him.
What bills did he introduce? What initiatives did he sponsor? Which investigations did he lead? What amendments bear his name? What great debates did he participate in?
See above
What did he do for his constituents in Massachusetts? What businesses did he persuade to come to the Bay State? Which elderly did he help get their Social Security benefits? What injustices did he correct?
See aboveSigh.
Oddly, his absence of biography confirms the impression I formed of him during my White House years: He's a back-bencher. I never can recall a single time that his name came up in any discussion of White House strategy on anything. He was the man who wasn't there. We were always figuring out how to deal with Ted Kennedy or Pat Moynihan or Tom Daschle or Phil Gramm, or Al D'Amato or Bob Dole or Jesse Helms or Orin Hatch or Joe Biden. But nobody every asked about John Kerry.
So he's not popular enough for Morris, big whoop!
He wasn't much there then, and he's not much there now. Only now he wants us to trust him to be president.
July 30, 2004 -- I LOVED Bill Clinton's speech. I was inspired by John Edwards. Bar ack Obama thrilled me. Max Cleland made me grow as a person as I heard him . . .
And then there was John Kerry.
All around him was eloquence but, in the center of the bagel, there was a speech that was a letdown.
And did he just tell 140,000 men and women fighting in Iraq that they are there because of a mistake?
I honor his service in Vietnam. I think a man who knows what it is like to fight in a war is a good person to have as commander-in-chief. John Kerry is a good man. But what else is there?
Last time I checked, Sen. John Kerry was 60 years old. But to listen to his speech last night at the Democratic National Convention, you would think he was still in his 20s.
He opened up his talk with a lengthy and evocative description of his childhood and what it was like growing up in divided Berlin. He told us of the "goose bumps" he remembers getting when the band struck up "Stars and Stripes Forever."
Then, after this long rendition of his childhood, he tells us at length what it was like to serve in Vietnam for the four months that he was there. So far, so good.
But then he spent only about one minute talking about what he has done since.
Beyond a brief allusion to his efforts for crime victims and to prosecute crimes against women as an assistant district attorney, his support for Clinton's plan for extra cops and a balanced budget and a reference to his work with John McCain on the POW and MIA issue in Vietnam, that's it.
What did this man do as an adult? What happened during his service as Michael Dukakis' lieutenant-governor in Massachusetts and in his 20 years in the United States Senate?
What bills did he introduce? What initiatives did he sponsor? Which investigations did he lead? What amendments bear his name? What great debates did he participate in?
What did he do for his constituents in Massachusetts? What businesses did he persuade to come to the Bay State? Which elderly did he help get their Social Security benefits? What injustices did he correct?
Kerry's biography ends at 24.
America does not want to elect a lieutenant to the presidency. The voters want a commander-in-chief, but there is precious little in the autobiography of John Kerry, as we heard it last night, to commend him to us.
This is funny, they want a Commander in Chief which is supposed to be a failed oil man, from a rich family who never worked a hard day in his life and who was made Gov in a state in which he actually served a total of 145 days on top of that he failed to live up to his ANG service and deserted? This is what Dick see's a Commader rather then a man who actually was ducking bullets and leading men? and you still claim the man isn't a hack?John Kerry? Oh yeah, he's the guy who fought in Vietnam and then he ran for president. That's not enough. Where did his 20 years in the Senate go
Oddly, his absence of biography confirms the impression I formed of him during my White House years: He's a back-bencher. I never can recall a single time that his name came up in any discussion of White House strategy on anything. He was the man who wasn't there. We were always figuring out how to deal with Ted Kennedy or Pat Moynihan or Tom Daschle or Phil Gramm, or Al D'Amato or Bob Dole or Jesse Helms or Orin Hatch or Joe Biden. But nobody every asked about John Kerry.
He wasn't much there then, and he's not much there now. Only now he wants us to trust him to be president.
Bush 145 days total as Gov.Wrong. Iraq had a long history of seeking to acquire WMD, concealing the weapons and the development programs, and lying about it. It had used WMD. There was no question that Iraq had had the weapons and development programs. The only question was how recently. We had spent a dozen years trying to get it to disarm, as it had agreed to do, and many people felt that the totality of the history pointed to a significant likelihood that it was still hiding WMD and/or WMD programs. A single use of one WMD inside a western city might kill up to a million people, which makes them a threat almost unparalleled in history. Someone like Hussein could not be allowed to possess them. We acted to eliminate the likely danger. Whether you agree with this reasoning or not, the motive was to prevent a WMD 9/11 down the road.
Saying something bad about Bush doesn't disprove a charge against Kerry
Still, the question remains. Suppose you sketch out for us some of Kerry's great accomplishments in the Senate.
Really? Prove it.
Quote:Wrong. Iraq had a long history of seeking to acquire WMD, concealing the weapons and the development programs, and lying about it. It had used WMD. There was no question that Iraq had had the weapons and development programs. The only question was how recently. We had spent a dozen years trying to get it to disarm, as it had agreed to do, and many people felt that the totality of the history pointed to a significant likelihood that it was still hiding WMD and/or WMD programs. A single use of one WMD inside a western city might kill up to a million people, which makes them a threat almost unparalleled in history. Someone like Hussein could not be allowed to possess them. We acted to eliminate the likely danger. Whether you agree with this reasoning or not, the motive was to prevent a WMD 9/11 down the road.
A long history? really? We are the ones who SOLD them WMD, supported them and helped them in the 80's. That was only 20 years ago.
Then we had the first Gulf war in the early 90's. Which resulted in inspectors being inside Iraq until 1998. so here does the "long" history come in?
As far as I know since the FIRST GULF WAR and his containment, no WMD have been produced. As recent as 1998 we have bombed what was left of anything resembling a possible weapons plant.
What you are trying to claim is that we went to war on "possibilities" not certainies.
You don't think inspections and containment which resulted in his not developing WMD could have worked a bit longer since he proved no threat?
No Saddam should not possess them no one should.
However he was the least of our worries and...
...now that we have drained much of our assests in Iraq other countries who actually DO have WMD and HAVE SOLD them are free to continue.
Trying to place 9.11 at the feet of Iraq is so dishonest you would think you would be ashamed to keep walking down that path.
Quote:.Saying something bad about Bush doesn't disprove a charge against Kerry
Maybe not but it goes to show the pure hypocrisy of Dick Morris not to mention he doesn't actually back up any of his assertions with actual facts.
Quote:Still, the question remains. Suppose you sketch out for us some of Kerry's great accomplishments in the Senate.
Thats not my job. See if Dick Morris is making the claims then it's his job to sketch out Kerry's failures to accomplish anything. Not to mention if you are going to use this as a motive for NOT voting for Kerry then that makes Bush's "accomplishments" relevant. So if Kerry hasn't accomplished anything and Bush accomplished even less how does that make Kerry the worst of the two? Dick's contention is that Kerry lacks the ability over Bush to lead because________. What I'm pointing out is that Bush lacked far less of an successful life and his creditentials are not being questioned. If you want to compare accomplishments and THEN make the claim that Kerry's are inferior then do so. To just claim it without supporting it is just the usual Rush like rhetoric.
Quote:Really? Prove it.
Hasn't that all ready been proven time and time again? How much more proof do you need? If you are going to completely ignore facts it's no wonder you find something like the piece of **** written by Dick Morris as valid basis for "argument"
