John Kerry - what a dork

Re: BPB


evidently ...

Kerry's screwups somehow facilitated the Cambodian massacres?

Wow; that is a major screwup!

Kerry's statements and actions are among those which contributed to the chain of events which culminated with the Cambodian Holocaust. I don't say it was his fault, just that he is among those at fault, and that he held a leadership position in the ill-considered anti-war/anti-US movement which precipitated the tragedy. He maintains his course yet today, and consequences no less dire would proceed from the realization of his agenda.

Of coarse, PoPot had very little to do with the Cambodian massacre. He was influenced by Kerry; the devil told him to do it.

Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge thugs had very much more to do with it than did Kerry, who was just a player - albeit a major player - in just one of several factors which came together to let the tragedy happen.

Nixon?

Nixon gets a share of blame too, certainly. For that matter, so would Ho Chi Minh and crew, Mao and freinds, them boys in Moscow at the time, and the U.N. which, true to form, did nothing apart from "voice concern".
Any calamity, disaster, or tragedy is likely to depend on many causes and players, and that one was no different; it had lotsa help.

Timber, that is as big a stretch as I have seen on a2k. Are you aka Plastic Man?

I'm unsurprised that would be your take, Advocate.

Can you connect those dots any better, Timber? I mean yeah, Kerry spoke against the Vietnam war after he fought in it, but how did he help bring about the ethnic cleansing of PolPot's killing fields?

I guess 9/11, the growing deficits, torture, etc., were caused by Kerry. Please, we all know that these things were caused by Clinton.

As said, snood, Kerry's game was just one of many links in the chain of missteps which led to the Killing Fields; there was no one cause, many factors worked together to bring about what happened.

Advocate, it would appear either you have an odd view of history or you have a proclivity for straw. I suspect a bit of both.

snood, It only takes a bit of imagination and political bias. It's really easy.

Where's the imagination and bias there, c. i.?

Some people just can't see through their own bias.

"November 5, 2006

Editorial

The Difference Two Years Made

On Tuesday, when this page runs the list of people it has endorsed for election, we will include no Republican Congressional candidates for the first time in our memory. Although Times editorials tend to agree with Democrats on national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House. Our only political loyalty is to making the two-party system as vital and responsible as possible.

That is why things are different this year.

To begin with, the Republican majority that has run the House ?- and for the most part, the Senate ?- during President Bush's tenure has done a terrible job on the basics. Its tax-cutting-above-all-else has wrecked the budget, hobbled the middle class and endangered the long-term economy. It has refused to face up to global warming and done pathetically little about the country's dependence on foreign oil.

Republican leaders, particularly in the House, have developed toxic symptoms of an overconfident majority that has been too long in power. They methodically shut the opposition ?- and even the more moderate members of their own party ?- out of any role in the legislative process. Their only mission seems to be self-perpetuation.

The current Republican majority managed to achieve that burned-out, brain-dead status in record time, and with a shocking disregard for the most minimal ethical standards. It was bad enough that a party that used to believe in fiscal austerity blew billions on pork-barrel projects. It is worse that many of the most expensive boondoggles were not even directed at their constituents, but at lobbyists who financed their campaigns and high-end lifestyles.

That was already the situation in 2004, and even then this page endorsed Republicans who had shown a high commitment to ethics reform and a willingness to buck their party on important issues like the environment, civil liberties and women's rights.

For us, the breaking point came over the Republicans' attempt to undermine the fundamental checks and balances that have safeguarded American democracy since its inception. The fact that the White House, House and Senate are all controlled by one party is not a threat to the balance of powers, as long as everyone understands the roles assigned to each by the Constitution. But over the past two years, the White House has made it clear that it claims sweeping powers that go well beyond any acceptable limits. Rather than doing their duty to curb these excesses, the Congressional Republicans have dedicated themselves to removing restraints on the president's ability to do whatever he wants. To paraphrase Tom DeLay, the Republicans feel you don't need to have oversight hearings if your party is in control of everything.

An administration convinced of its own perpetual rightness and a partisan Congress determined to deflect all criticism of the chief executive has been the recipe for what we live with today.

Congress, in particular the House, has failed to ask probing questions about the war in Iraq or hold the president accountable for his catastrophic bungling of the occupation. It also has allowed Mr. Bush to avoid answering any questions about whether his administration cooked the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Then, it quietly agreed to close down the one agency that has been riding herd on crooked and inept American contractors who have botched everything from construction work to the security of weapons.

After the revelations about the abuse, torture and illegal detentions in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Congress shielded the Pentagon from any responsibility for the atrocities its policies allowed to happen. On the eve of the election, and without even a pretense at debate in the House, Congress granted the White House permission to hold hundreds of noncitizens in jail forever, without due process, even though many of them were clearly sent there in error.

In the Senate, the path for this bill was cleared by a handful of Republicans who used their personal prestige and reputation for moderation to paper over the fact that the bill violates the Constitution in fundamental ways. Having acquiesced in the president's campaign to dilute their own authority, lawmakers used this bill to further Mr. Bush's goal of stripping the powers of the only remaining independent branch, the judiciary.

This election is indeed about George W. Bush ?- and the Congressional majority's insistence on protecting him from the consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004, he announced he now had real political capital and intended to spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on the House and Senate. "

From today's NYT.

The imagination and bias of that NYT bit-o-screed is blatant. Where is the imagination and bias within the statement " Kerry's game was just one of many links in the chain of missteps which led to the Killing Fields; there was no one cause, many factors worked together to bring about what happened." or in that statement's companion, "Nixon gets a share of blame too, certainly. For that matter, so would Ho Chi Minh and crew, Mao and freinds, them boys in Moscow at the time, and the U.N. which, true to form, did nothing apart from "voice concern".
Any calamity, disaster, or tragedy is likely to depend on many causes and players, and that one was no different; it had lotsa help.?

To include Kerry as one of the cause for Pol Pot's killings fields is a stretch where once clamed without direct support is bias on its own merits. If you include Kerry as one of thos responsible, can you also name others at his level of responsbility? Then the question becomes, why? I see bias written all ove rit.

The statements and actions of the Bush family are among those which contributed to the chain of events which culminated with the Nazi Holocaust. I don't say it was their fault, just that they were among those at fault, and that they held a leadership position in financing the anti-semitic/anti-Jews movement which precipitated the tragedy.....

<sheesh>