LOL, dookie.
Bush does misspeak quite frequently doesn't he?
His unintentional Yogi Berra impersonations are particularly amusing don't you agree?
Why does it feel that, sometimes, the left is rooting for the bad guys to win?
"...how can a traditional sense of an Army defeat terrorists, thereby allowing them to surrender?"
That is the point, dookie, we can't win the War on Terror in that sense.
Because you equate dissent with disloyalty, McG. We're not rooting for the bad guys to win, but we think they may if we keep going at this rate.
Cycloptichorn
Larry434 wrote:Actually Bush said, just today:
"We are winning and we will win," Bush, 58, told members of the American Legion, the largest U.S. veterans group, in Nashville, Tennessee. The U.S. "will stay on the offensive. We will win by spreading liberty."
I like that, no matter if he was not as clear before and his comments were not taken as he obviously intended, ie., winning a war in the traditional sense where an Army is defeated and surrenders.
I like that too. Do you like your liberty with jelly? I prefer mine on wheat bread with strawberry jam. Who knew that liberty was so creamy and easy to spread?
bush said the "war on terror" is "different kind of war". and it is. spys and bomb throwers.
but then he turned around and tried to prosecute it like a classical type of war.
the islamists can't do that much to america from without. but from within they have been successful and probably will be again. the jets on 9/11 took off from within the country. and were hijacked by people who were either here legally or on expired visas ( as i remember ?) and had faded into the background of day to day life. because we continue to ignore the entry issues. not to mention the borders and coasts.
i certainly wouldn't call for a soviet style "your papers" society. but at the same time we do need to realize that when we discuss legal or illegal immigration, the socio-economic implications, though important, pale in comparison to the reality of a bad charachter entering the country unrecorded, filling a van with fertilizer, and a few open purchase chemicals to create a truck bomb. once that is in place, the only other requirements are a real hankerin' for those 72 virgins and a thomas guide.
imho...
Quote:"Why does it feel that, sometimes, the left is rooting for the bad guys to win?"
Why does it feel that the rightwing nutjobs need to accuse the left of rooting for the bad guys?
Bin Laden would just LOVE to have Bush back in office. Since the invasion of Iraq, terrorism is up, and Al Qaeda has successfully replaced most of it's top leaders.
The Left HATE the terrorists and their philosophy just as much as the Right. And now that we've seen how the Right has dealt with terrorism (thereby actually allowing it to INCREASE), perhaps it is time for the Left to take a stab at it.
A monolopy of Government just hasn't worked very well up to now.
Back on to the thread.
http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df08312004.html
Quote:Swift Boat Vet Got $40M Contract From Bush
The Bush White House has denied any connection to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth1 - the group that has been airing factually unsupportable smear ads against Sen. John Kerry's war record. But a new report today shows that one of the key accusers in the smear ads was a lobbyist for a company that recently received a massive federal contract from the Bush administration.
As the Washington Post reports, Rear Admiral William L. Schachte Jr., the man who claims Kerry was not under fire when he received his first Purple Heart, is a top lobbyist for a defense contractor that recently won a $40 million grant from the Bush administration. According to a March 18 legal filing by Schachte's firm, Blank Rome, Schachte was one of the lobbyists working for FastShip's effort to secure federal contracts.2 On Feb. 2, FastShip announced the Bush administration had awarded it $40 million.3
Schachte has other connections to the Bush administration. The Washington Post notes David Norcross, Schachte's colleague in the Washington office of Blank Rome, is chairman of this week's Republican convention in New York.4 Records show that Schachte gave $1,000 to Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns.5 Additionally, Schachte helped organize veterans' efforts against Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and for Bush in the 2000 South Carolina primary.6
This is not the first member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who has been revealed to be connected to the President. The Bush-Cheney campaign's top outside lawyer was forced to resign after he admitted providing legal services to the veterans group.7 The Bush-Cheney campaign's veterans adviser was also featured in one of the smear ads.8
Sources:
"Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan," WhiteHouse.gov, 8/20/04.
"A Swift Shift in Stories," Washington Post, 8/31/04.
"FastShip, Inc. to Receive $40 million in Federal Support for Marine Cargo Terminal in Philadelphia," FastShipAtlantic.com, 2/02/04
"A Swift Shift in Stories," Washington Post, 8/31/04.
OpenSecrets.org, 8/04.
Charleston Post & Courier, 2/17/2000.
"Bush-Cheney Lawyer Advised Anti-Kerry Vets," Washington Post, 8/25/04.
"Bush Campaign Drops Swift Boat Ad Figure," Washington Post, 8/22/04.
Uh-oh. There are more holes in the Swift Boat than we thought.
Cycloptichorn
our swiftboat's going down! quick, rearrange some more deck chairs!
look! there's a good one! "kerry found in bed with live boy AND dead girl". it's a double whammy!
quick, grab it! it's our only hope!
The Titanic never went down this fast. Boy, talk about a swift exit from the truth.
How much you wanna bet that the mainstream media just lets this slide?
Dookiestix wrote:Quote:"Why does it feel that, sometimes, the left is rooting for the bad guys to win?"
Why does it feel that the rightwing nutjobs need to accuse the left of rooting for the bad guys?
Bin Laden would just LOVE to have Bush back in office. Since the invasion of Iraq, terrorism is up, and Al Qaeda has successfully replaced most of it's top leaders.
The Left HATE the terrorists and their philosophy just as much as the Right. And now that we've seen how the Right has dealt with terrorism (thereby actually allowing it to INCREASE), perhaps it is time for the Left to take a stab at it.
A monolopy of Government just hasn't worked very well up to now.
When you make statements like:
Quote:And George Bush was talking about "terrorism," not Iraq, whereas Saddam's army has NEVER surrendered, but has mearly transformed itself into an Iraqi insurgence hellbent on ending American occupation. Remember "Mission Accomplished?"
And how can a traditional sense of an Army defeat terrorists, thereby allowing them to surrender? Terrorism is actually on the RISE, especially after the invasion of Iraq.
You seem proud of the fact that saddam's army never surrendered. It appears that you are happy that they continue to reek havoc for the sole purpose of making Bush appear to be a less viable candidate. Is your hate so strong that you wish further casualties on US soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians?
You say that terrorism is on the rise, but outside of Iraq and Israel, terrorist attacks have not been that prevalent.
How do you know what Bin Laden would love? Does he love the fact that 75% of Al Qadea's leadership has been captured? Does he love that he has no more funding? Does he love that he can find no safe refuge?
The left has done nothing to fight terrorism except throw words at it. It will take much more than words or appeasement to keep fanatical Muslim terrorists from attacking US interests. Bush has demonstrated that.
I didn't read it that way at all McG, and I think many people who don't believe in the Iraq war are very sensitive to accusations of wishing defeat on our own country.
You'll remember that there was a nasty train bombing in Spain, and recently two planes went down in Russia. I think that terrorism is alive and well throughout the world. Also, I would point out that what's happening in Iraq doesn't really qualify as terrorism by the strict definition.
CoastalRat wrote:Lightwizard wrote:The four months wasn't as important as Kerry' realization that the war was a mistake and the majority of Americans supported that, otherwise LBJ would not have resigned. Bush flip-flops like a fish out of water and he's suffocated by his own sixth grade rhetoric.
So, LBJ resigned? Is this another example of revisionist history or did you mean it to come out differently?
I meant to say he resigned himself to the mistake of the war and announced he was not going to run for a second term. Sorry, had an appointment to make and rushed through that one! While we're there, Nixon promised to end the war honorably and played a waiting game while still running our soldiers through the Vietnam meat grinder knowing quite well there was no honorable withdrawal. It should have been done within months of his taking office.
FreeDuck wrote:You'll remember that there was a nasty train bombing in Spain, and recently two planes went down in Russia.
turkey, chechnya, movie theatre in russia last year. a real live ricin gas attack in japan a few years ago. there's not much new about terrorism. it is new to the continental u.s., though.
McGentrix:
You seem completely oblivious to the point I was making. Fair enough. Ignorance can be bliss, I guess...
Wherever did I say that I was proud that Saddam's army never surrendered? On the contrary, I was vehemently against this invasion, as there was absolutely NO planning regarding the current build up of insurgents and outside Arab terrorism that has been allowed to flourish under a failed plan from the Bush administration. And now what I predicted would happen HAS happened. That is by no means "rooting" for an enemy. It is CONVENTIONAL WISDOM when one is a bit more aware as to the myriad complexities of the Middle East. And so, a conventional western style of military action just hasn't worked. Why? Because Al Qaeda has replaced most of it's top leaders already, so there really isn't a power vacuum within the organization anymore DESPITE the fact that 75% of Al Qaeda's FORMER leadership has been captured. How is that "rooting" for an enemy when one is mearly trying to UNDERSTAND how this organization functions in order to combat it? You obviously do not understand the inner workings of the Al Qaeda organization, as you are convinced that the 75% of their leadership is permanently gone.
Terrorism is terrorism, whether it be in the Middle East, on American soil, Israel and/or Iraq. America is more hated than ever around the world, and these attacks are on the rise. There are now more public beheadings of OUR men and women, as well as the citizens of other countries who became the Coalition of the Willing.
There are more roadside bombings than ever before; Iraq's oil production continues to be interrupted by terrorist/insurgents; the Iraqi soccer team despises Bush, and roughly half of this country cannot stand the man. The hundreds of thousand of protestors who showed up at the convention is a rather profound testament to that fact.
It is hard for the Left to have a say in the fight against terrorism as our government is SOLELY run by the Rightwingers these days, and they have done a splendid job of obstructing the due process of a bipartisan approach to government, so that argument offers up nothing but fallicies on your part.
Unfortunately, this thread has nothing to do with this current subject.
But, as the Swift Boat Veterans of Smear continue to lie (and have been proven time and again of lying through their teeth), it would not surprise me that we will have lost our 1,000th soldier in Iraq all because of lies.
And regarding your quote: this is a public forum of opinion, and nothing more. Why offer up a quote which would effectively deflate the purpose of this forum? As all YOUR opinions are merely YOURS, why should we not believe that YOUR posture is excessively patronizing, indicating a self-image that exceeds your ability?
Thanks DTOM, I knew there were others but couldn't remember the specifics.
Well, the swiftboat vets have not been shown to have lied to any real degree, certainly nothing near to what Kerry did with his Cambodia lie, and his combat V on his silver star.
The lack of credibility is overwhelmingly Kerry's.
Especially since he insists on hiding his military record.
The lack of credibility has been proven time and again against the Swift Boat vets:
Quote:Alfred French, who signed an affidavit accusing John Kerry of exaggerating his war record, is in trouble after it was revealed that he didn't serve with Kerry and
did not exactly witness his behavior in Vietnam. Lying in affidavits is obviously not a good idea when you're a county prosecutor. Oh yes, he also got caught lying about an
extra-marital affair.
After Ken Cordier's departure from Team Bush (see Idiots
167) it was the turn of Benjamin Ginsberg to
quit last week when it was revealed that not only was he a lawyer for George W. Bush's campaign, he was a lawyer for - surprise - Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. We hear the door did not hit him in the ass on the way out.
Jim Russell (who, unlike the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth," was actually there the day that Kerry pulled Jim Rassmann out of the river) composed a
stirring letter contradicting their story. "The picture I have in my mind of Kerry bending over from his boat picking some hapless guy out of the river while all hell was breaking loose around us, is a picture based on fact and it cannot be disputed or changed," he wrote.
Larry Thurlow signed an affidavit accusing Kerry of lying about being under fire when he rescued Rassmann, saying "no return fire occurred.... I never heard a shot." This directly contradicts his own Bronze Star citation (see Idiots
167). But a third Bronze Star was awarded that day, to another Swift Boat skipper, Robert Lambert. Lambert's recently-released citation
says that "all units came under small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks," and that Lambert "directed accurate suppressing fire at the enemy." The citation praises his "coolness, professionalism and courage under fire." Thurlow claims that Kerry faked the citations by falsely describing events to superior officers. But Kerry is not the eyewitness on Thurlow's citation - Lambert is. Can it be any more obvious that Thurlow is lying?
John O'Neill has been making a big stink lately over whether John Kerry was in Cambodia or not during the Vietnam War. It appears that nobody - including Kerry - is really sure. But O'Neill - as usual - made himself look like a complete ass by
claiming to CNN that he (O'Neill) had never been in Cambodia and in fact it was impossible to cross the border by river. Whoops! It turns out that O'Neill appears on an audio tape recorded in the Oval Office telling the complete opposite to Richard Nixon. O'NEILL: "I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water." NIXON: "In a swift boat?" O'NEILL: "Yes, sir." Ah, credibility. We hardly knew ye.
Even George W. Bush admits John Kerry is a war hero,
saying last week, "I think him [Kerry] going to Vietnam was more heroic than my flying fighter jets. He was in harm's way and I wasn't." So now it's clear that either George W. Bush or the Swift Boat Idiots are lying. One or the other. Who can it be?
sozobe:
It may be a lost cause. It would be impossible to convince the rabid rightwingers otherwise, unless we completely open Pandora's Box on the Vietnam war and look into EVERY man who won a medal, as well as EVERY atrocity that took place. But my guess is America just isn't ready to completely open up that wound, and neither is the Bush administration, for the parallels between Vietnam and Iraq are becoming more apparent everyday. And now, even Republicans are looking for answers from their idiot savant as they continue to back him up on this quagmire.
Dookiestix, I know. I've started and then given up on numerous responses, to people coming in and saying variations of what 1q2w3e says, above. I started this thread because I didn't want to keep restating. (Thanks for saying it again, in a nice compact way.) But if people have seen that and just aren't interested, what can we do?
I think what I'll focus on now is the second part of my original intent, keeping actual issues at the forefront.
Tried to do that with the story about the Detroit terror case but it was skipped over, I'll start a new thread on it.
