Kerry wiped the floor with Bush

While Kerry did directly reference his military service a few times:

Quote:

KERRY ... I know what its like to go out on one of those missions ...

KERRY: Well, where do you want me to begin ... as somebody who has been in combat ...

KERRY: ... I know what it means to lose people in combat ...

KERRY: ... when I came back from fighting in that war ...

KERRY: ... not to confuse the war, ever, with the warriors. That happened before ...

KERRY: ... I defended this country as a young man at war ...

to be fair, Bush at least once sorta indirectly made reference to it too ... here's what he said:

Quote:

BUSH: ... Well, first of all, I admire Senator Kerry's service to our country ...

Transcript

All in all, however, its doubtful anything said by either of them changed very many minds. That's to be expected if history is any guide; despite media excitement, very little, if any, real, demonstrable, clearly attributable trend-bucking opinion-shift has been occasioned by any of the previous Presidential Candidate Debates in general. Where the candidate's numbers were going into the debates, pretty much there they remained following the debates. Perhaps 1960 and 1984 were exceptions, but even there the evidence is inconclusive and the analysts' opinions are split. Though of course the possibility of a knockout punch always exists, such a happening has been conspicuous by its rarity at the very least, perhaps even its absolute absence. I really think the debates are more contrived media events than effective campaign tools.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
So why do we keep letting people who are not well intentioned develop nuclear weapons?

The reasons:

1) We cannot, alone and without violence, stop these nations from pursuing nuclear weapons programs.
2) There are other Powers that are willing to help such nations in return for any number of different types of valuable consideration.
3) The UN is ineffective in its efforts to control nuclear proliferation
4) These nations are ruled by Bad Guys who very badly want nukes and will go to any extreme to obtain them.

And 5...

Many of them have the legal right to if they so desire.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

And I'm still not buying that bilateral == unilateral, by the definition of the words themselves. Unilateral would be bombing the crap out of their reactors with no warning.

North Korea having nukes is a problem. Engaging NK alone is a unilateral response to that problem. The only problem that NK having nukes might be symptomatic of, rather than definitive, is that it has a lunatic for a dictator. All of the bilateral talks in the world will not resolve that problem.

If having the other nations of the world at our side to either pressure Saddam to comply with UN resolutions or to take him down is so imperative, than why doesn't the same general principle apply with the NK problem.

Yes, there must be different responses to different problems, but the argument that "North Korea wants to talk to us alone," isn't justification for dispensing with the assistance of other nations.

0 Replies

Don't forget that John Kerry, in the debate, characterized all the members of the coalition, including the U.K., as 'primarily window dressing' as the United States goes it essentially alone which he also characterizes as indefensible. But he wants us to go it alone with North Korea.

I'm still looking for a single conviction, a single opinion that John Kerry holds that I can believe he believes or that I can support.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Yes, and since my issue is with those who think it is always the solution, I fail to see your point.

I was sorta, partially, agreeing with you.
I won't bother anymore.

You, obviously, fooled me, but I take you at your word and apologize if my reply was overly curt.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

If having the other nations of the world at our side to either pressure Saddam to comply with UN resolutions or to take him down is so imperative, than why doesn't the same general principle apply with the NK problem.

It does.

Quote:

Yes, there must be different responses to different problems, but the argument that "North Korea wants to talk to us alone," isn't justification for dispensing with the assistance of other nations.

I actually agree. I'm for multilateral action in all situations as long as it doesn't harm us. I think you've talked yourself into thinking this is an argument of multilateral verses unilateral, and I don't think it is. And I don't think anyone has argued that. It's your conjecture that talking directly to NK means destroying the multilateral talks. I'm not sure that's necessarily true. And that is as much as I've thought about it.

But if you try hard enough, you might convince yourself and others that those of us who didn't support action against Saddam are being inconsistent by not condemning Kerry for advocating bilateral talks with NK.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
So why do we keep letting people who are not well intentioned develop nuclear weapons?

The reasons:

1) We cannot, alone and without violence, stop these nations from pursuing nuclear weapons programs.
2) There are other Powers that are willing to help such nations in return for any number of different types of valuable consideration.
3) The UN is ineffective in its efforts to control nuclear proliferation
4) These nations are ruled by Bad Guys who very badly want nukes and will go to any extreme to obtain them.

And 5...

Many of them have the legal right to if they so desire.

Perhaps, I don't know enough about International Law to argue or agree.

The notion, though, that there is a body of law that actually governs such matters is abstract in the extreme.

I suppose some version of Natural Law permits countries to pursue nuclear weapons for the purposes of advancing their interests, but the same body of law would also permit other countries to prevent such pursuits to advance their own interests.

In any case, it would be hypocritical, at best, for nations like North Korea and Iran who, on a daily basis, violate International Law, to seek its protection for their pursuit of nukes.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

If having the other nations of the world at our side to either pressure Saddam to comply with UN resolutions or to take him down is so imperative, than why doesn't the same general principle apply with the NK problem.

It does.

Quote:

Yes, there must be different responses to different problems, but the argument that "North Korea wants to talk to us alone," isn't justification for dispensing with the assistance of other nations.

I actually agree. I'm for multilateral action in all situations as long as it doesn't harm us. I think you've talked yourself into thinking this is an argument of multilateral verses unilateral, and I don't think it is. And I don't think anyone has argued that. It's your conjecture that talking directly to NK means destroying the multilateral talks. I'm not sure that's necessarily true. And that is as much as I've thought about it.

But if you try hard enough, you might convince yourself and others that those of us who didn't support action against Saddam are being inconsistent by not condemning Kerry for advocating bilateral talks with NK.

No, I haven't had to talk myself into believing anything. It is an argument between multilateralism and unilateralism and I have explained my reason for believing so. It is my belief that talking directly to NK renders the multilateral discussions immaterial. Think about the issue some more and perhaps you will come to agree with me.

Again, I don't have to try hard at all to come to the conclusion that those who criticized Bush for perceived unilateralism, but who accept Kerry's plan for actual unilateralism are inconsistent. What others believe is up to them.

0 Replies

Bush did three things last night that I really noticed, other than try to hammer on only a few issues, and they were:

1. "Let me finish." When nobody was interrupting him. That was quite funny.

2. Used the emotional, personal card by telling the story of "Missy Johnson". It makes me sick that Bush will use someone's dead husband as an emotional appeal. He could have said exactly the same thing without using someone's name and making it personal, but research shows that by making it personal people will identify with it better. Still no excuse.

3. Looked like a teen making fun of the teacher when being talked to. Did you see how attentive Kerry was when Bush was speaking, taking notes and getting ready to address the president's speech. Bush, on the other hand, scowled and sighed and looked as though he was trying to remember his few talking points.

It seemed as though Bush was thinking, "If I say the same things often enough I'm bound to get a few good video clips for my cousin to play over and over at Fox."

*Note that I understand why Bush says the same few things repeatedly - it's communications 101 - say what you're gonna say, say what you have to say, and then say what you just said...the listener will probably remember most of what your point was by that time. It would just be nice to see him put together some complex ideas.

Listening to Kerry speak and watching him think - it was so refreshing to not be treated like an idiot when being spoken to.

0 Replies

Does anyone here believe, or believe that John Kerry believes that Bi-lateral talks with NK won't lead to the end of Multi-lateral talks? Rolling Eyes

That would be a huge step in reverse... back to the days when our weak leadership allowed NK to dictate to the United States the terms in which we'd provide them aid. Kim Jong Il is a monster folks. You do not want him gaining leverage. NK needs to follow the path of Lybia...

0 Replies

I was just talking about "Let me finish"! Hadn't seen that here yet I don't think. Was talking to someone who hadn't seen the debates, and she asked if the moderator was able to handle Bush. That was great.

[wistful]If ONLY they would unleash some actual journalists to ask actual unpredictable questions that he'd have to answer on the fly...[/wistful]

0 Replies

You have to take into account that NC has a LARGE army, is equipped with nukes and has another madman in charge. China holds the purse strings and around a year ago, they cut the supply of oil to them. By doing that they were sending a message. I don't know how far China will go, but it is in the best interest of all the Asia countries to be involved. Saddam had a small army and WMD's (using pre-war intel). The islamic fundamentalist were in the Mideast, not NK. Little Kim is in his own right a sick man and his people have resorted to eating grass and the children that die. Again the international community should be running to the side of the victims there. They all should want to be involved in any kind of talks.. Yet again, it's an American problem. All the atrocities and everyone is asking. What's George Bush going to do about it? Is that sick or what?

0 Replies

Already the tapes are playing with Kerry's words from the debate compared to his different declared 'one position' on the same subject last week or last month on sometime in the last year or so. He may be a polished debater, but he made so many statements that contradicted himself, he will provide fodder for his opponents for weeks. His statement on NK is only one of those.

They might be able to do that with George Bush to some extent on an issue or two, but they'll have to really stretch the point to do so. Make fun of his style and how he makes his point all you want, but at least he has a point to make.

0 Replies

Why is everyone still ignoring how STUPID Bush is?? Is it not OBVIOUS that government should be run by the smartest and not the stupidest citizens?? Stop watching the pathetic conservative, biased corporately owned news conglomerates and do some real research on what's going on in Iraq. It's getting worse over there and if Bush is reelected we are seriously going to be fu@*#d. Does anyone besides me care that the entire world HATES Bush, and if we support him by reelecting him they will soon hate the American PEOPLE as well. This is just insanity to me that people could support a moron like Bush.

0 Replies

Well I don't knoiw about that Voltoza. He has a superior academic record to either Al Gore or John Kerry and holds an MBA. You may want him to be really stupid, but even the left leaning urban legend sites won't back you up there.

0 Replies

Xena wrote:

RfromP wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Kerry mentioned his Vietnam experience repeatedly. My wife and I would chuckle everytime he mentioned it.

What is humorous is Bush's "service" not Kerry's, a man who served his country when asked and didn't run and hide when faced with the possibility of the ultimate sacrifice.

He ran and hide alright. 4 months in Vietnam, 3 purple hearts and whatever many medals. All in 4 months! Sounds fishy to me.

When any other sodiers would have stuck it out with his crew, he ran home as soom as his rice-ridden ass allowed him to. That's not courage to me.... Couldn't wait to use his "experience" in Vietnam to run home and call him buddies, war criminals. Couldn't wait to use his "experiences" to run for office. He is the worst of the worst when it comes to politicians. He is no hero.

==========================================

In 1991, as cochairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, Kerry proved himself to be a masterful chameleon, displaying to the public at large what appeared to be an unbiased approach to resolving the lingering Vietnam POW/MIA issue.

But in reality, no one in the U.S. Senate pushed harder to bury the POW/MIA issue - the last obstacle preventing normalization of trade relations with Hanoi - than Kerry.

The Select Committee acknowledged in its January 1993 final report (page 6) that after...............................In late January, Sampley and two other Vietnam veterans organized Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry on the Internet at www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com.

(remainder of above post deleted to save space)

What is your experience in military decorations that leads you to believe as you put it, "3 purple hearts and however many medals sounds fishy" to you? Or do you have any knowledge of the subject?

In total, Kerry served on active duty for four years with eleven months in Vietnam. Not four months as you suggest. Four of those eleven months he served as commander of a Swift Boat where he sustained shrapnel wounds on three separate occasions of which he still has in his left thigh because the doctors decided to removed damaged tissue and close the wound with sutures rather than make a wide opening to remove the shrapnel.

In accordance with military regulations Kerry was entitled to an early departure from Vietnam (subject to approval by the Bureau of Naval Personnel), because those who had been wounded three times, "regardless of the nature of the wound or treatment required...will not be ordered to serve in Vietnam and contiguous waters or to duty with ships or units which have been alerted for movement to that area."

Wouldn't you want to get your "rice-ridden ass" out of there too?

You said, "When any other sodiers [sic] would have stuck it out with his crew, he ran home." Please enlighten me as to the qualifications of your expertise into the mindset of soldiers.

You said, "Couldn't wait to use his "experiences" to run for office."
He was discharged from active duty in March 1970 and did not hold political office until 1982. Kerry was elected Lieutenant Governor in 1982. Two years later, he was elected to the United States Senate and he has won reelection three-times since. He is now serving his fourth term, after winning again in 2002. Not exactly the definition of "couldn't wait" is it?

You also cut and paste a bunch of stuff from a website apparently of which is supposed to back up your assertions. You do yourself a disservice by letting others think for you. I prefer to form opinions/conclusions based on research and contemplation of facts obtained from legitimate sources and not based on what others say I should think. You should really try it.

0 Replies

Zena- It's sick... but what does North Carolina have to do with it? :wink:

Voltoza- Who is surprised by "how stupid he is"? And, no, it is not obvious that the government should be run by the smartest citizen.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

I think his references to "being in combat" however, probably reminded some of what he did after "being in combat".

nobody needed a reminder. he brought it up and talked about himself. good. he should have.

JustWonders wrote:

General Franks further stated that the Senator is 100% wrong in saying that troops and resources were diverted from Afghanistan in order to concentrate on Iraq. He said never at any time was there a reduction in troops in Afghanistan nor was money or any other resource diverted for that purpose. I guess he should know...he was there.

semantics...

diverted?

Franks Told Graham That Resources Were Being Diverted To Iraq 14 Months Before The Invasion. In an excerpt read on NBC's "Meet the Press," Senator Bob Graham said Gen. Tommy Franks told him in February 2002 that "his men and resources were being moved to Iraq, where he felt that our intelligence was shoddy. This admission was coming almost 14 months before the beginning of combat operations in Iraq and only five months after the commencement of combat in Afghanistan." (AP, 9/5/04)

Troops Diverted From Bin Laden Hunt To Iraq. In 2002, "troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures." Furthermore, "U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because intelligence matters are classified, said that as much as half of the intelligence and special forces assets in Afghanistan and Pakistan were diverted to support the war in Iraq." (USA Today, 3/29/04, emphasis added; KnightRidder/Tribune News Service 9/5/03)

i tried to access the original via kr/t, but a subscription is required. darn!

0 Replies

Any moron can get an MBA, especially if his/her dad is a multi-millionaire. All I want is a coherent meaningful sentence out of Bush. Anyone who cannot see his stupidity is blind. How is it NOT obvious that government should be run by the smartest in society?? The other options are it being run by the mediocre or stupid people! COME ON

0 Replies

RfromP writes

Quote:

Kerry was elected Lieutenant Governor in 1982. Two years later, he was elected to the United States Senate and he has won reelection three-times since. He is now serving his fourth term, after winning again in 2002. Not exactly the definition of "couldn't wait" is it?

Doesn't it give you any pause at all that he isn't including any of the that time from 1982 to present in his campaign to be president of the United States? Shouldn't that time from 1982 to present be more important to his qualifications than a few weeks on a swift boat in Vietnam? Why do you suppose that is? Could it be his track record since 1982 shows how little leadership he has demonstrated and also shows a voting record that is palatable to only the most radical left wing loonies?

0 Replies

Kerry wiped the floor with Bush

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know