1
   

Kerry wiped the floor with Bush

 
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 03:28 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
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...


My take on Kerry's reference to bi-lateral talks with N.Korea was that since we've gone to multi-lateral talks with North Korea, the US has taken it's eye off that ball...

Kerry 1st debate wrote:
Colin Powell, our secretary of state, announced one day that we were going to continue the dialog of working with the North Koreans. The president reversed it publicly while the president of South Korea was here.

And the president of South Korea went back to South Korea bewildered and embarrassed because it went against his policy.


I think that Kerry is saying we'll put our eye back on that ball and China will support us now, because it's in their best interest. It didn't sound, in the debate as though Kerry's bi-lateral talks were to be at the exclusion of the current multi-lateral talks.

Kerry 1st debate wrote:


I believe that this is more what Kerry has in mind, rather than exclusive bi-lateral negotiations - he's talking about open bi-lateral dialogue.

Lee Jong-won wrote:
Lee Jong-won, professor of international politics at Rikkyo University in Japan, said Tokyo and Seoul would be upset if the United States and North Korea were to have bilateral talks. Lee also said Kerry had not made clear how the six-party process would continue.

"If he were to follow the Clinton pattern and have bilateral talks only, Japan, South Korea and China would oppose that. On the other hand, it is because there is such a gap between the United States and North Korea that the six-way talks are not making progress," said Lee.

"What would be best is to have U.S.-North Korea bilaterals within the six-way framework."

SOURCE
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 03:34 pm
Could I see some evidence to back this one up Foxy?

Foxfyre wrote:
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
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 03:35 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
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


Apparently so.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 03:38 pm
Jer wrote:
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.


You apparently live in Canda so I am hoping that you are not an ex-pat American who can vote in our election, not because you clearly prefer Kerry to Bush, but because of the shallowness of the basis of your preference.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 03:39 pm
Jer wrote:
Could I see some evidence to back this one up Foxy?

Foxfyre wrote:
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.


thanks jer. i was wondering about that myself since bush admits to being a "c" student.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 03:39 pm
I liked this bit from the Betty Bowers debate review:

On a positive note, I'm glad that the President was able to clearly pronounce the non-flip-floppity Bush Doctrine of Foreign Policy: We can invade Iraq without consulting anyone, but can't even talk to North Korean without China holding our hand.
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 03:40 pm
Voltoza wrote:
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.


Voltoza I feel your pain.

What drives me nuts is that people will talk about this and that and the other thing...but at the end of the day it is so painfully obvious that John Kerry wants to live in peace and harmony with the rest of the world - for the US to be a good leader.

George W. Bush's intent is clearly not about cooperation and having a happy, healthy planet. It's about being a bully. He bandies the term "freedom" around like crazy - but W's version of freedom means "you're either with us or against us." You're "free" if you're with us.

Freedom means that as long as you're not against us, you're okay. There's a big difference there.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 03:42 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
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


Apparently so.


hi finn, how are ya?

have the multi-lateral talks produced anything yet? i mean anything new that haddened already been in place for 50 years?
0 Replies
 
Xena
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 03:49 pm
This is just one of thousands of Vets who have said the same thing. It's not just the Swiftboat Vets. All of them will tell you he didn't HAVE to leave Vietnam. He couldn't wait...


http://www.blackfive.net/main/2004/08/hero_speaks_out.html

August 23, 2004
Hero Speaks Out Against Kerry
Major General (ret.) Patrick Brady, a Medal of Honor awardee, wrote a guest Op-Ed for the the Northwest Veterans Newsletter (a veteran's resource on-line since 1996).

Guest Op-Ed by Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady 16 Aug 04
America has no kings or queens but we do have nobility - our nobility is called Veterans. That nobility is responsible for the bounty that is America but tragically their influence has faded in recent years and the values they died for are under attack. But this election year they are back in demand and some have said the veteran vote could decide this election. It may have put Bush in the White House. With this in mind, John Kerry is seldom seen with out his band of brothers and constantly plays the" hero" card as a cornerstone of his bid for president, indeed, as the definition of who he is. Kerry defines patriotism as "keeping faith with those who wear the uniform of this country. He also brags that he "defended this country as a young man". If Missouri is the show me state, Veterans are the show me voters - we are not much for words, deeds are our stock in trade. Lets look at Kerry's deeds.

Before Kerry played his "hero" card, he played the atrocity card. When Kerry came back from Vietnam he joined with Jane Fonda and in 1971 denounced "those who wear the uniform" as terrorists-like rapists and assassins who "cut off heads, taped wires … to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks" … and said he "committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others". He made these charges under oath. Kerry says today that he would have framed some of what he said in 1971 differently. But he does not say he lied, which he did, nor does he apologize. How can one properly frame the denunciations of ones comrades in arms as modern day Genghis Khans?

The very day that Kerry was calling Vietnam veterans' war criminals the family of one of those "war criminals", Michael Blanchfield, was posthumously receiving the Medal of Honor for Michael who had thrown himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades. How different from Kerry was the way this man kept faith with those who wore the uniform with him. How different from Kerry was the manner Michael defended his country.

He could have attacked the war without attacking the warrior. He could have questioned policy without supporting the communists' claim that our soldiers were war criminals. He could have kept faith with those who wore the uniform with him. But he did not and he should be held accountable...

The rest is continued in the Extended Section.

By every measure, the Vietnam veteran has been an exceptional citizen; but there is one disturbing statistic -- their suicide rate. In the first 5 years after discharge the rate was 1.7 times higher than non-veterans. After 5 years it was less. This may have been due to the treatment the Vietnam veteran received from the media - and the anti war movement led by Kerry -- in the early years after the war. Living with the scars of war is difficult, for some unbearable, but all veterans suffer. The Vietnam veteran suffered physically as much, perhaps more than any veteran of the past century, but no veteran has suffered the mental agony of that veteran.
What Kerry/Fonda and the media elite did to the Vietnam veteran and his family is deplorable. They opened a gash in his psyche and then rubbed salt in it. Not just the living but also those who died and their families who questioned if a loved one is a war criminal. And the POWs some who believed the Kerry/Fonda cartel extended the war, increased their torture and filled more body bags. Whether Kerry and Fonda have blood on their hands is debatable but there is no doubt they have salt on them.

Kerry's "hero" card is based on medals he received in Vietnam and is much celebrated, and unchallenged, by the mainstream media. I know many Medal of Honor recipients who have received less publicity for their medal than Kerry has for his. But medals don't make a hero. It is how one uses medals that make a hero. Every honest soldier knows that medals are a function of circumstance, even happenstance, but most of all the support of ones fellow warriors.

I was awarded the Medal of Honor; but my fellow soldiers who supported me in the actions and took the time to write it up earned it. I wear it for them, they own my medals. And every Medal of Honor recipient and hero I know believes as I do. Medals should be a sign of patriotism, a symbol of sacrifice, support and defense of a great nation. The highest form of patriotism is service to our youth; heroes also wear their medal for them to signal the importance of courage. Heroes do not use their medals for personal political gain. As I said they are not theirs to use.

Senator Kerry threw his medals away (or ribbons, they are symbolically the same), a political act very difficult for any veteran to understand. He must have been proud of them for he wore them even on his fatigues, in violation of all regulations. But they were not his. They belonged to those who he served. By that act he symbolically denounced his fellow veterans -- again. Does one keep faith with those who wear the uniform by throwing away their medals?

But perhaps most telling of his leadership qualities is his use of his Purple hearts to abandon his band of brothers, his command, on a technicality. Kerry may be the only person in history who took advantage of a Navy regulation that allowed him to leave his command after 4 months for 3 purple hearts none of which ever caused him to miss a day of duty. In my experience men fought to stay with their band of brothers, especially commanders. All the commanders I know would get out of a hospital bed to be with their men. Some one had to take his place; someone probably less experienced who would have to learn the ropes. That put his command more at risk than if he stayed. It is not hard to understand why those who stayed in combat for the full year are upset with Kerry.


And veterans today would be upset with Kerry's support of Flag Burning his non-support of weapons systems and his 12 votes against military pay raises. But his use of veterans and mis use of his medals should bring into serious question his loyalty, integrity and character all of which equal leadership.

He is not fit for command
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 03:54 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
You apparently live in Canda so I am hoping that you are not an ex-pat American who can vote in our election, not because you clearly prefer Kerry to Bush, but because of the shallowness of the basis of your preference.


Finn,

This thread is already huge and I was just getting started. The things I pointed out hadn't been mentioned yet.

Believe me in that I will get much further into this - but it blows me away that, as an obviously very bright person, you will sit there and call me down for being critical of Bush's behavior during the debate. He behaved like a child in contrast to Kerry's attorney-like, note taking, respectful demeanor.

I didn't talk about why I preferred Kerry to Bush at all in that post. Did you think that was my intent?

It's really obvious from my post that I was only talking about Bush's behaviour and style, not content.

Jer wrote:
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.


Content comes when I've got some more time...

*Edited once to change the word "forum" to the bolded word "thread".
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 03:59 pm
Jer wrote:
My take on Kerry's reference to bi-lateral talks with N.Korea was that since we've gone to multi-lateral talks with North Korea, the US has taken it's eye off that ball...
I believe the 2 years were at the beginning. It took that long to get Kim to the table... probably because he had been rewarded by Bush's predecessor for being obstinate. He had insisted NK would never sit down to Multi-lateral talks, and threatened to build weapons if we didn't meet his demands. I do not think Bush's "because I said so" policy in Iraq went unnoticed. Just after major combat operations were declared over, Kim came to the table. This was a huge change in policy for him, and a small victory for Bush.

Kerry 1st debate wrote:
Colin Powell, our secretary of state, announced one day that we were going to continue the dialog of working with the North Koreans. The president reversed it publicly while the president of South Korea was here.

And the president of South Korea went back to South Korea bewildered and embarrassed because it went against his policy.
Colin Powell spoke out of turn. What the President did was put Kim on notice that we were done paying blackmail money while he killed North Koreans in horrific quantities and worked on building the very weapons the so called Agreed Framework was designed to prohibit. Bush did this one right.

Jer wrote:
I think that Kerry is saying we'll put our eye back on that ball and China will support us now, because it's in their best interest. It didn't sound, in the debate as though Kerry's bi-lateral talks were to be at the exclusion of the current multi-lateral talks.
If Kerry believes that he can hold bi-lateral talks with Kim without dissolving all hope of Multi-lateral talks he is a fool. To me, that would be evidence of incompetence. I don't believe that Kerry really believes that. I suspect he preferred Clinton's "pay them not to be too bad" policy. I can't understand why, because the policy was a failure. We don't need fewer countries involved in the talks. We need every civilized country to condemn Kim's behavior and stand together as one against him. Bi-lateral talks would be a giant step in the wrong direction.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 04:05 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
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


Apparently so.


hi finn, how are ya?

have the multi-lateral talks produced anything yet? i mean anything new that haddened already been in place for 50 years?


Good grief DTOM you gave Iraq 11 years of UN resolutions and wanted more time still, do you really think that the NK problem can be resolved in less than 2 years?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 04:06 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
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


Apparently so.


hi finn, how are ya?

have the multi-lateral talks produced anything yet? i mean anything new that haddened already been in place for 50 years?
Good point. It is high time to turn up the pressure... not down. Idea
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 04:07 pm
Quote:
In August 2004, United States intelligence officials and non-governmental experts concluded that diplomatic efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to Iran and North Korea have failed to slow their weapons development programs. [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/08/politics/08nuke.html?hp>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/05/14/international1254EDT0609.DTL On August 6, 2003, North Korea and Iran plan to form an alliance to develop long-range ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. Under the plan, North Korea will transport missile parts to Iran for assembly at a plant near Tehran, Iran.

On August 28, 2003, North Korea announced that it is in possession of nuclear weapons, has the means to deliver them, and will soon be carrying out a nuclear test to demonstrate this capability.

In August 2004, United States intelligence officials and non-governmental experts concluded that diplomatic efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to Iran and North Korea have failed to slow their weapons development programs.


Bush and those multi talks things didn't work either. He is now openly creating them is the only difference.

I was looking through links and it is not only North Korea and Iran that did not sign that treaty thing about not creating more Nuks but also Israel. Wonder why they are not included in the axis of evil thing.

I also wonder why both Bush and Kerry mentioned Israel so much in connection with Iraq. That is sure to set the Arab/Muslim world off. And they did watch it. The whole world apparently did. But I forget, we can't be appeasing the terrorist so we got to go the other way and piss them off.

I am done here. I am about sick of the whole nine yards from beginning to end. I don't even think I will vote this year even though I think Kerry did a good job last night and swept away all the flip flop accusations although it is like the other side seems to oblivious to the facts.

The media is going to town trying to be bush cheer leaders and make last night a victory for Bush.

Think I will take time off to try and write novel. Anybody know any good editors?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 04:10 pm
Made the mistake of watching the news today.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 04:14 pm
Jer wrote:
Voltoza I feel your pain.

What drives me nuts is that people will talk about this and that and the other thing...but at the end of the day it is so painfully obvious that John Kerry wants to live in peace and harmony with the rest of the world - for the US to be a good leader.

George W. Bush's intent is clearly not about cooperation and having a happy, healthy planet. It's about being a bully. He bandies the term "freedom" around like crazy - but W's version of freedom means "you're either with us or against us." You're "free" if you're with us.

Freedom means that as long as you're not against us, you're okay. There's a big difference there.


Jer - I could be wrong but this looks like "content," and appears even more
silly than your other comments.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 04:18 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
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?

That one's already been debunked. Kerry referred to his experiences as a Senator several times during the debate, at times effectively so.

Sozobe listed one instance and then another two that she happened to come across on looking for Vietnam references in the debate - there's probably more.

Enough with the rehearsing of talking points already.
0 Replies
 
RfromP
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 04:20 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

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?


It absolutely gives me pause that Kerry has to defend himself from attacks on his military service rather than be able to have an actual debate on relevant topics. Where do you suppose those attacks come from? If he chose to be the better man and not response to the spurious allegations against him he would be perceived as not defending himself, an obvious sign of weakness and he would surely have no chance to be elected.

I'm even more concerned however, that Bush's only political experience before becoming President was six years as a State Governor; a man with no Congressional/Senatorial voting record whatsoever.

If you are going to make the assertion that his (Kerry) "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", then you need to prove it. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. Cite examples from his voting record that clearly indicate a pattern that demonstrates his lack of leadership and loony left winged radical behavior.

A voting record can be spun anyway someone wishes. What is more important to me is the reasoning behind the vote. For example, I am against abortion but I also feel that I have no right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do to her body. I wouldn't want someone to tell me that. So if I were to vote I would vote giving women the right to choose. Again, the vote is not what is important to me as much as the motivation behind the vote.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 04:23 pm
Finn, I've seen Jer post some sensible stuff on George Bush and America's politics in general on this forum. To isolate one post of his and insist that it proves that's apparently all he he has to say, or all he'd base his vote on, is beyond childish - and to be honest, kind of mean-spirited, in a petty kind of way.

C'mon mate, just because your side has lost one debate is no reason to suddenly start snarling at people an' all! ;-)
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 04:23 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
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?


Do you really want Kerry bringing up his role in the BCCI scandal that rocked the entire Bush family, Iran Contra which involved numerous people in current admin (and even a now Fox News reporter) and his breaking of the terrorist financing heirarchy? Rolling Eyes

I think if you actually LOOK at what he has accomplished while serving as a senator, you'd stop making the demand that Kerry run on his record.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 4.27 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 01:52:06