Debunking SBVFT

I think Kerry's choir is already pretty well defined and that his hopes for picking up the swing voters and veterans are fading rapidly, duck.

0 Replies

Well if you aren't interested in listening then why do you care what he's talking about?

0 Replies

Sigh.

Larry,

Kerry used to talk about his senate record a lot. That is, until the Bush campaign started blasting him for not having the neccessary experience to run the armed forces and win the war on terror.

Many media analysts did (and do) consider the war on terror to be the turning point for this race. So what does Kerry do? Focus on those things which will make him an effective leader on the war on terror.

Now he gets blasted for not talking about his record enough. The truth is, he would be blasted by the republicans either way, no matter WHAT he talked about. The OTHER truth is, he is tied or winning polls that ask for who would be the better leader in the war on terror, so he's obviously doing something right.

Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Indeed, horn, politics is a contact sport. And a dirty one at that.

0 Replies

The Bush campaign has been talking about Kerry's senate record for MONTHS now. And as they did, his poll numbers continued to rise. That's why they needed the Swift Boat Veterans of Smear to level the playing field. Just like Johnny Cochraine raised enough doubts to let O.J. off, the Swift Boat Vets of Smear have raised enough doubts about EVERYTHING Kerry ever did in Vietnam, which, if strung together, paints a story that would be polar opposites of what his official Naval Records and those who actually served WITH him on his swift boat have documented and attested to.

Which makes sense, since John O'Neil is currently a practicing lawyer.

And as it worked with McCain in 2000 and Cleland in 2002, it could perhaps work again in 2004. But judging by the hundreds of thousands of protestors who showed up the other day, I doubt it.

And I though Republican neoconservatives HATED lawyers.

0 Replies

The NYC lawyers that were just in visiting our office sure hate the Repub neocons. It's always good when feelings are reciprocal.

0 Replies

Quote:

Kerry now admits he was not in Cambodia at Christmastime as he had said many times since returning from the war.

No member of his crew remembers EVER being in Cambodia.

Oops!

Well, waddya know, Larry434. Oops on both sides. So why won't the Swift Boat Veterans of Smear just drop it altogether and TALK about something like, oh, Kerry's voting record?

Suffice it to say that Vietnam is a highly divisive issue, and one in which the recollection of MANY veterans is not entirely clear.

So perhaps we can ALL agree to just move on and start talking about the issues.

0 Replies

If the neo-cons hate lawyers, they hate most of the electives in the Senate and House.

0 Replies

I have been waiting for Kerry to drop his mantra of <I was a small unit CO in Viet Nam for 4 months and that qualifies me to be CIC and President>, dookie.

I would LOVE to hear Kerry defend his Senate record...at least on the rare occassions he has been there to leave a record.

0 Replies

Well, at least anyone who has actually ever SEEN war will have a more profound perspective on the subject than those who skipped it altogether.

Now, perhaps, we can try and figure out the LATEST Bush flip-flop: First the war on terrorism was winnable; now it's not.

That idiot savant just can't make up his mind.

0 Replies

" First the war on terrorism was winnable; now it's not"

Please elaborate, dookie.

0 Replies

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aXd.VtmUytvw&refer=top_world_news

Quote:

Aug. 31 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said the U.S. will prevail in the war on terror after Democratic rival John Kerry's campaign criticized Bush's comment over the weekend that the war on terror may not be winnable.

"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."

Bush said he doubted the U.S. can win the war on terror in a Saturday interview aired yesterday on NBC. "I don't think you can win it, but I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world,'' he said.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

so what's the problem?

0 Replies

Thanks, dookie.

"We will win by spreading liberty", says our President.

I like that.

And he will stay the course.

I like that too.

0 Replies

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? Smile

0 Replies

You must like the flip-flops as well, then, Larry434.

Gingrich said it would be really silly if Kerry argued that he could win the war on terrorism. But Bush said exactly that last month.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408310006

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

You must like the flip-flops as well, then, Larry434.

Gingrich said it would be really silly if Kerry argued that he could win the war on terrorism. But Bush said exactly that last month.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408310006

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.

0 Replies

Larry434 wrote:

Quote:

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.

If it was so obvious what Bush intended to say, the why did he say just the opposite?

http://www.dubyaspeak.com/audio.shtml

What Bush obviously intends seems to be confined to your own perspective, Larry434. Perhaps you can tell us what Bush intended to say regarding American Indian sovereignty in today's world.

Or perhaps you can elighten us as to why Bush regards AIDS as an "addiction," rather than an affliction.

Or perhaps you can tell us the intent of Bush when he states that, "our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

Just curious...

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

Debunking SBVFT

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know