Friday, September 17, 2004

Return to the 'Dirty South'...



I am leaving bright and early tomorrow morning for the lovely RED state of North Carolina –and maybe the remnants of Ivan and to welcome in Jean… I will be gone from ya’ll (have to get into the mood) for a very lengthy TEN days (that's the house)! I have already mapped out the public libraries (since it will rain the entire week anyway) and will let my children run amuck as I check in periodically from public internet access (always up for a new experience!)

I leave you with a few thoughts to chew on…

Kerry has been bashing Cheney (isn’t that the Veep candidate’s job?) for the past year about the Darth Vader of companies…Halliburton. Low and behold…The Co-Chair of Kerry’s campaign gets paid over a half-million dollars a year…LOBBYING FOR HALIBURTON! ...Need I say more?

New information from the ‘Oil for Food’ scandal shows that monies allocated for the people of Iraq may have been funneled to Al Qaeda…more specifically to Bin Laden. But, no…there were no ties at all! (Special report Saturday night on Fox News Channel).

Retired Col. Walter Staudt, who was brigadier general of Bush's unit in Texas, (the man sited in the ‘forged CBS documents’ as pressuring Killian to ‘sugar-coat’ Bush’s guard record) has come forward to say this is not true, that Bush used no influence to get into the Guard (he says there was a long list to get into the Guard, but not pilot training because there was a chance pilots would be sent to Vietnam), and that Bush was in the top 5%-10% of his class –so there was no reason to ‘make things look better’. Now, I do believe that forging ‘government’ documents is a felony (not to mention within 60 days of a Presidential election -undue influence…) Where is the investigation?

Can I just say how totally disgusted I am with the new moveon.org ad?! We have soldiers actively fighting in two separate theaters and they depict a soldier holding up his weapon in defeat…they wish! I would hope that if the tables were turned right now and I wanted the incumbent out…that I would not be wishing for the worst (even if it was Hillary). I would hope that I would be a better American than to wish for failure in Iraq (and use deaths for political gain & talking points), hope unemployment stopped falling, pray the economic recovery tanked and prayed to (Buda?) each night that Bin Laden stayed well hidden… Please let my hate never be so great that it overtakes my humanity!

Have a wonderful week…I shall miss you all!

Regretfully they tell us,
But firmly they compel us
To say goodbye to you.

So long, farewell, Auf wiedersehn, good night,
I hate to go and leave this pretty [site].
So long, farewell, Auf wiedersehn, adieu,
Adieu, adieu, to yieu and yieu and yieu.

So long, farewell, Au'voir, auf wiedersehn,
I'd like to stay and taste my first [campaign]
So long, farewell, Auf wiedersehn, goodbye,
I leave and heave a sigh and say goodbye,
Good bye…

29 comments:

this we'll defend said...

Retired Col. Walter Staudt, who was brigadier general of Bush's unit in Texas, (the man sited in the ‘forged CBS documents’ as pressuring Killian to ‘sugar-coat’ Bush’s guard record) has come forward to say this is not true, that Bush used no influence to get into the Guard (he says there was a long list to get into the Guard, but not pilot training because there was a chance pilots would be sent to Vietnam), and that Bush was in the top 5%-10% of his class.

My goodness. You really are a wingnut just like Lefty said. I say this with love of course.

Here is a clue: 1) yes there was influence used to get Shrub into the Guard, as there was for EVERY pilot in the "champagne unit" (called that by the Guardsmen themselves) he served in that was liable to be drafted otherwise. 2) There was a long list to be a pilot as well - as a quick search of the archives would show you. There was a chance ANY guard unit would be sent to Vietnam, it was just not any more likely than being struck by lighting, AND the planes the champagne unit flew were of no use in Vietnam, another reason it was the "Champagne unit." 3) Bush scored the lowest possible score in the testing required to even get in the guard. 4) that he graduated in the top 5-10% isn't verified by the records that just came out (not the CBS ones) - what, I thought he released all his records, what has he got to hide? oops, sorry, thought we were talking about Kerry for a moment. Bush Sr. (a Congressman at the time) recieved a letter from a 2-star general telling him how well Bush was doing in his training. Of course any 2LT or officer candidate will tell you that 2-star generals always pay attention to initial entry trainees, so there couldn't be any favoritism there, right? Any vets want to back me up and tell how often 2-stars monitored your basic? And how often 2-star generals wrote to your parents?

Maybe Bush was just that damn good, huh?

Tammi said...

Have a wonderful time. But take a couple pads of paper. If you are sitting around for 10 days (well as much as possible with a couple of boys) that mind of yours will be wandering all over, and I'd hate to think we'd lose all that blogging fodder!!

I was thinking of something the other day regarding Bush gettin special treatment in the Guard. I heard someone on FOX (can't remember which show) last night say the same thing.

You know it's highly possible he did have someone "watching out" for him. And not because anyone called in any favors. Just think about it for a second. I'm a VP for a major company. I get a resume across my desk for the CEO's son. He wants to work on my team. He's got the qualifications, he's got the desire so yeah, I hire him. And no, I don't "ride him" like I do the rest of the team. I do handle him with kid gloves. He does the same job as the others, but I just kinda keep an eye on things, because of who his family is.

Now, again, he didn't ask to be treated that way. No one called in any favors to get him special treatment, I'm just reacting to the circumstances. It's no one's fault and doesn't change the fact that he can and does handle his responsibilities well. It doesn't change the fact that he knows the job.

We've all been involved in a situation like that at one time or another. Never pleasant, but it happens. Do some people expect that "white glove" treatment? Yeah they do. But I do NOT believe that the Bush's did. It's not consistant with how I've seen them over the years, but that's just my take.

BTW - regarding not taking the physical. I've read that the reason was becaues Bush was being transfered to Alabama and wouldn't be flying anymore. Why would you take a flight physical if you're not flying? (I'll find that point and repost the link sometime today).

Just my .02 worth.

~Jen~ said...

NooooOOOOoooOOoooooOOOO!!!! I knew this day was coming, but I was so unprepared for your departure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bigandmean said...

TWD,
I considered applying for entry into the Texas Air National Guard about the same time the President did(not Shrub please, respect for the office requested).

I gave up on the idea because I found out that you had to have strong connections to get in and I didn't have them. My Dad's 20 years in the Navy didn't come close to the influence weilded by most of those who applied. I had a better chance of getting into the Air Force Academy.

So, did the President have connections? Of course he did. The same type of connections that gave Al Gore a desk job, safely tucked away in an office in downtown Saigon surrounded by thousands of American and ARVN troops. Whether either of these men actively sought favoritism is questionable but that they were given deference seems to be obvious.

I couldn't get in the Navy either, even though my Dad tried to help. I was probably competing with Kerry for a spot but Kerry's influence was apparently more influential than mine.

None of my friends or contemporaries wanted to go to Viet Nam and get shot at and we weren't embarrassed or ashamed to admit it. I had friends who had gone to Viet Nam and died there and I wasn't anxious to join them. We were all scurrying to get the best situation we could find for ourselves while still doing our duty to country.

President Clinton, of course, had the same problem as the rest of us and the same motivations. He had the added problem of trying to maintain "political viability" but like me, had no political clout. Unlike me, he used deception to avoid service, something most of us wouldn't do.

That's the way it was. So, I have a question for you. So What? Bush, Kerry, Gore, Clinton and me....thousands of young men all caught up in something not of our making. Those who had some connections got the better spots. The rest of us just dealt with it the best we could. Would I have used Bush or Gore's connections if I'd had them? Damn right.

You argue that Bush made the lowest possible score to get into the TANG. I don't know if you're right or not (source CBS?) but if you are, again, so what? If you get your bar results and pass with the lowest possible score will that somehow taint your accomplishment or will you take it?

His commanding officer said he was in the top 5 or 10% of those in the program yet you claim there's no verification. A statement in writing by his commanding officer is not verification? His evaluations by Killian were outstanding. The pilot who flew with him said he was a great pilot. This isn't enough?

You claim he had as much chance of being hit by lighting as being sent to Viet Nam. Not true. We could pretty much calculate the chances of being struck by lighting but none of us could predict what was going to happen with the war. Even Johnson, McNamara and your other democratic party breatheren running the show didn't know. There were constant rumors of massive call-ups of the TANG and there was a time when I was relieved that I hadn't been able to get in.

You claim Bush hasn't released his records. Not true. He's done everything he can to do so. He's signed the release forms necessary to authorize release of his military records, something Kerry has not done. Kerry has cherry-picked his records and posted the most favorable ones on his web site and left the rest, like his medical records, to conjecture. Has Bush signed a release? Has Kerry? The answers are yes and no, in that order.

justrose said...

ALa, if you're reading this in the library, I hope you arrived safely! But damn you, you're my only friend in this godforsaken metropolis and now I'm forced to hang out with my FAMILY for two weekends in a row! You can't get back soon enough!!!!!

...not that you don't deserve a break because if anyone does, it's you ...

counting the days, and wishing you well -- jr

Kat said...

Ok...here I am...sick to death of Vietnam. I was barely a baby in diapers when this war was going on. I've had to read about 30 books just to get a general idea of what really happened. I didn't even rely on school books because I immediately thought our history books was missing something (just like the revolution, civil war and every war after that).

I want to give a news flash to some folks...This aint' your Daddy's war (no offense BandM). This is our war. This is us taking a stand right now. We are in it, for better or worse, and it is only the foolish that believe we can avoid it or could change paths. bullshit about hegemony, or halliburton, or oil, or any other meme is just that..bullshit!

I support this war and I don't get a paycheck from halliburton, my gas prices continue to go up and I certainly don't plan on voting to keep our guys in some country for the next 50 freaking years if they aren't needed for "imperialistic" purposes.

Having said that, I have my own reasons why I believed we should have gone there (Iraq) as well as Afghanistan. I am not going to start crying because it isn't going quite the way I thought it would. What kind of loser mentality is that?

In case nobody noticed, we aren't in Da Nang or cambodia or Laos or any other part of eastern asia fighting Viet Cong. We are in Iraq. The insurgents are three types of groups: Foriegn Mujihadeen that follow Al Qaida (damn good reason to be fighting them there); former Ba'athi (who would like nothing better than to get back to business as usual killing folks and building palaces); other Iraqis (namely Sadr and crew supported by Iran) backed up with criminals that are seeking their own power and have already put their boot down on the Iraqi people in the areas they roam.

Not one of these is good for the Iraqi people and certainly would not be anyone we would work with, given any circumstances.

You notice that not one of them has "vietcong" in their name. They don't even come close to the VCs abilities. They will be taken care of because we are far removed from the battles of Vietnam and I'm more than positive that every officer had to study the failures of Vietnam to insure they weren't repeated.

So...in the long run, what I don't need is some "I was in Vietnam" jack ass reliving his Vietnam experience in the White House.

Here's another idea...you think the guys that fought in Vietnam and are generals now have a clue about how to do it? Everyone thinks it's the administration or the Pentagon that is directing how to do the fighting.

Well, here's another news flash for you...they found out in Vietnam, going in and wiping out whole villages just because somebody in there might be an enemy was not conducive to relations with the natives. You think maybe these guys figure it's not a good idea to go in firing in the village (falluja) until the villagers figure out that the enemy are the ones hurting them? why do you think we were able to clear out Najaf and have the people later protesting Sadr and praising the Americans?

If we'd gone in blazing early on, we would have had a whole hell of a lot more people picking up arms in the city against us and a hell of a lot more casualties. We can sustain. They cannot. This is the lesson of Vietnam.

Kerry's lesson in Vietnam? The US is an evil imperialistic country that needs to be reigned in. It commits atrocities against the natives. Everything can be solved with talk.

You want historical info and his time in the Senate to be his record? We want to compare Vietnam? fine...the guy negotiated with the North Vietnamese Communists and then returned to washington to stand on the steps of the Capitol and demand that his country, our country, take all of these points and surrender; communists took control and guess what happened to the Vietnamese?; the guy negotiated with communist backed Ortega. Ortega took power and guess what happened to the Nicaraguans? He voted against nuclear proliferation in the 80's insisting that we should just negotiate with the USSR (want to talk about the millions that aren't alive in the USSR to talk about it?) thank God nobody listened; He voted against throwing Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991...He voted for Afghanistan because he didn't have a choice if he ever wanted to be elected again. He hedged his vote for Iraq 2002.

Why did he do these things? Because he believes that the US uses it's power as an evil force to enforce it's will on the world. He says it in his book the New Soldier, His biography, etc.."the lessons of Vietnam".

He's saying it now.

yes...he will finish Iraq because he has no choice, but his idea about a secure and safe Iraq doesn't necessarily mean it will end in a democracy or even be friendly to the US. And when he was done, that would be it. No more moving against the enemy. Just waiting as they proliferated in Palestine, Syria, etc.

Back to status quo while we prayed we put things in place in the US to protect ourselves against infiltration and attack and we "talked" and "negotiated" away our advantage. And when we are and these guys are hiding in Syria, what will he do? Negotiate with Syria while the bad guys move to another area or Syria thumbs it's nose at us while we try to figure out our options (which, if it's like the clinton Administration, we will do nothing but MAYBE lob a missile at Syria to "let them know we're serious").

There can be no rest back here in the states while the enemy takes control of countries and populations. Based on his 20 years in politics, this is what we can expect.

this we'll defend said...

Yes this is not vietnam. Yes we need to win in Iraq. All of your other conclusions are FLAWED.

John Kerry made his service a key part of his campaign because Bush the "war president" was campaigning on military bases (something other presidents have not done because they actually love our country), his VP was campaigning on military bases, he even wore a uniform and landed on the aircraft carrier (remember that?) So Bush made military service a key part of the campaign and was attempting and STILL IS attempting to portray all democrats as anti-military, weak, and unwilling to serve. In fact he was unwilling to serve himself, so pointing out the disparity would help Kerry.

So the Republicans trashed his honorable service and made fun of his purple hearts - because they support the troops, don't you know.

The reason Kerry made Vietnam a part of the campaign is bumper stickers that say "I support the President and our troops." So if I don't support the president am I AGAINST the troops? That is what the right-wingers who claim to be patriotic but are destroying our nation and hurting our war on terror would have us think. So Kerry said "I AM one of those troops." So they lied about his record (I notice that all of the right-wing blogs attacking CBS and Dan Rather and assuming it was part of the Kerry campaign, who claim how wrong it is to dare question Bush's NG service, they all still have prominent links to the Swiftvets. Hmmm...)

As for your contention that those who fought in Vietnam who are generals now learned something about fighting insurgencies - yep, you bet. Which is another reason I am voting Kerry - those generals were IGNORED and ideologues like Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and Feith forced the military to take actions that those generals KNEW were disastrous. The Army War College in fact predicted exactly where we would be at this point. So did Gen. Shinseki - who was publicly scolded and humiliated for it. The Bush administration's micro-management of the military led to errors like no plan for post-combat consolidation of our initial military success - even though the generals were begging to be allowed to plan for one - because the Iraqis would greet us with flower-strewn streets. As a result we lost a critical window of opportunity and the insurgency we are fighting was avoidable all along.

The issue of whether we should have invaded Iraq in the first place is addressed in the Army War college study none of you have bothered to read because it takes 20 minutes that you would rather spend blogging about how weak those dems are. And what does the Army War College know about war anyway? Bush owned a baseball team so he is much better qualified. Read it if you dare to challenge the spoon-fed reasons for invading Iraq: Bounding the Global War on Terrorism found at http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/pubresult.cfm?pubid=207. But you won't.

I'm voting Kerry because I want to WIN the war on terror, not just fight it.

Bush and Putin have a lot in common. Watch what is happening to democracy in Russia for clues about a 2nd Bush administration.

Kat said...

Bush and Putin have a lot in common. Watch what is happening to democracy in Russia for clues about a 2nd Bush administration

TWD...now I believe that you are going into the conspiracy theories of the way left. The "Bush is dictator" meme. Do you really think that is going to happen? Seriously now. He does not have THAT kind of following and he'll be out in four years when the 2nd admin is up. There is no dictating there.

Also, if things are not perceived correctly, the democrats will be voted back into congress in two years and possibly pick up enough seats for the majority (it's damn close right now). That usually has a decent balancing effect. The president doesn't make laws, congress does. He only passes or vetoes them and he hasn't really vetoed anything, even if it was a democrat sponsored bill.

So, I find that claim to be a little FLAWED as well.

Kat said...

Let's look at some of Kerry's comments through out his career bout Vietnam. Start with his 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

"Senator, I will say this. I think that politically, historically, the one thing that people try to do, that society is structured on as a whole, is an attempt to satisfy their felt needs, and you can satisfy those needs with almost any kind of political structure, giving it one name or the other. In this name it is democratic; in other it is communism; in others it is benevolent dictatorship. As long as those needs are satisfied, that structure will exist"

Mr. Kerry Continues:

"Mr. Kerry: Well, Senator, this obviously is the most difficult question of all, but I think that at this point the United States is not really in a position to consider the happiness of those people as pertains to the army in our withdrawal. We have to consider the happiness of the people as pertains to the life which they will be able to lead in the next few years."

In otherwords, who cares who is in charge as long as the country is "peaceful". Well, that's a bit of a problem since we have places like Syria and Iran that have been assisting the fighters going into Iraq. Based on this comment, we could assume that he will shore up who ever is strongest in Iraq (even if it's the complete return of the Ba'athi) and let them run the country as long as we were able to "stabilize" and leave. But of course, this is from '71, the senator was not yet a senator and had not grown politically.

There is his book, the New Soldier which the democrat party tried to suppress:

"Even among the New Soldiers, in our hatred for the war and our drive for change, there is a wide divergence on approaches to change, or, for that matter, on what causes the need for change...

But among all there is an intense and deep-rooted agreement that America has lost sight, hopefully only temporarily, of much that we knew as our greatness.

...We are aware also of all the traditional arguments -- that those in power have access to information, that America can do no wrong, that America has particular interests which it must safeguard, and so on. In reality, however, there is a big difference between these arguments and what happens to the people involved.

...Now, however, I will not go blindly because my government says that I must go. I will not go unless we can make real our promises of self-determination and justice at home. I will not go unless the threat is a real one and we all know it to be so. I will not go unless the people of this country decide for themselves that we must all of us go"

Any of this sound familiar? strike the word "Vietnam" and throw in the word "Iraq". Was withdrawal from Vietnam a 'win' or 'loss'?

Aug 9...Kerry at the grand canyon...

"My goal, my diplomacy, my statesmanship is to get our troops reduced in number and I believe if you do the statesmanship properly, I believe if you do the kind of alliance building that is available to us, that it's appropriate to have a goal of reducing the troops over that period of time," he said.

On that timetable, Kerry's aim would be to pull out a large number of the 138,000 U troops in Iraq in the first six months of his administration."

..."Kerry challenged Bush to answer some questions of his own -- why he rushed to war without a plan for the peace, why he used faulty intelligence, why he misled Americans about how he would go to war and why he had not brought other countries to the table."

Please note the "why he misled America". I know that is TWD's belief as well, but I am serious when I tell you I disagree with "misled". When the entire world is telling you that Saddam has something, UNMOVIC is hedging it's answers and even senator Kerry, allegedly a member of the senate intelligence committee, sees the same info and believes the same thing, there is no "misled", but it's awful convenient for people to claim so. Fits in with his belief that the US government is one big hegemonistic goliath, bent on taking over the world using whatever means necessary.

How about his little 1985 trip to Nicaragua and what he said about it?(this is from his friendly propaganda news paper, the Boston Globe)

"Within weeks of taking office in 1985, he was off to Nicaragua, accompanied by reporters on a 36-hour, self-appointed fact-finding mission with another freshman, Democratic Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. Congressional Democrats had accused the White House of exaggerating the communist threat posed by the Sandinista regime. So the two senators were publicly castigated when -- just days after meeting with Daniel Ortega and other leaders of the regime -- the Sandinistas climbed aboard a plane to Moscow to cement their Soviet ties."

News Max looks at it differently:

"Nonetheless, Kerry raced back to Washington with the document he touted as a “peace proposal.” Indeed, Ortega promises a cease-fire, as long as the United States cut off all assistance, including humanitarian aid, to the anti-communist forces and their families.

“Here,” Kerry boldly pronounced to the Senate, “is a guarantee of the security interest of the United States.”

by the way...that would be time number two that Mr. Kerry went with out authorization from the state department or the President on a "fact finding mission" and came back with a peace treaty (North Vietnamese in Paris and now D. Ortega, Nicaragua). What did Kerry have to say about it?

"Kerry worried that a repeat of Vietnam -- with a White House misleading the public -- was in the making. "A central part of my campaign had been the notion that I would bring to the Senate the experience of the Vietnam period, which cautioned me against the kind of illegal activities we were hearing about, and the things that were going on," Kerry recalls. "Literally, I did do an ad hoc investigation."(boston globe)

Do you see a little pattern here? Let's look at his comments going into the second term...(from the globe)

"Vietnam is a lesson," Kerry says. "It is history to me. It can guide me, but it doesn't run me. You have to move on and I moved on long ago. But the lessons are valuable. I love the lessons."

shall I look up his comments on nuclear proliferation or why he vetoed gulf war I or Bosnia (against his own party I might add)?

This is Mr. Kerry. You can tell me that my analysis is flawed, but these are his own words. I didn't make them up.

free0352 said...

In case nobody noticed, we aren't in Da Nang or cambodia or Laos or any other part of eastern asia fighting Viet Cong. We are in Iraq. The insurgents are three types of groups: Foriegn Mujihadeen that follow Al Qaida (damn good reason to be fighting them there); former Ba'athi (who would like nothing better than to get back to business as usual killing folks and building palaces); other Iraqis (namely Sadr and crew supported by Iran) backed up with criminals that are seeking their own power and have already put their boot down on the Iraqi people in the areas they roam.

Not one of these is good for the Iraqi people and certainly would not be anyone we would work with, given any circumstances.


damn right. Couldn't say it better.

Paul G. said...

Kat,

Thanks again for taking another slap at the Vietnam Veterans.
Our soldiers and generals did not lose that war, politicians did.
Wrong war wrong plan, wrong wrong wrong.
Thirty books and you couldn't find the answer, the answer is that it COULD NOT BE WON, the best that could have been hoped for was another truce like Korea.
The United States lacked the authority to militarily overthrow the forces of the north, and the means to enforce a victory if they had.

And that is the lesson of Vietnam as applied to Iraq.
At the end of Gulf One it was recognized that there were a list of reasons we should not continue into Baghdad.
The coalition mandate was to liberate Kuwait, beyond that the United States and coalition members that continued would no longer receive logistical, financial, or military support from the Arab State members or the Japanese.
Additionally it was understood that entering Baghdad meant house to house fighting with an unclear outcome because Saddam s soldiers could be expected to remove uniforms and assume the identity of the civilian population.
Lastly in this incomplete list is that there was no one to replace Saddam with.
Iraq is not Vietnam, there is no preexisting opposition government to hand the country to, and any government we conjure to take the place of the Bathist Party is not going to be able to hold together the diverse and hostile groups that Saddam kept under control with an iron boot.
On the other side what should or could have been done is now beyond change and we cannot walk away from Iraq as we did Vietnam and the Soviets did Afganistan.
It is the "Iraq Situation" now, not the Iraq War, the old government is gone, without a proper armistice or surrender to define the peace.
The proper method would be to redefine Iraq by partition.
Iraqs neighbors and other Arab countries are vehemently opposed to this and guarantee its failure.
The last remaining solution is a long term occupation of probably no less that 15 years with a slow transition of real power.
Is the Japan model workable in Iraq?
Probably not, as Iraq is not the isolated island of Japan.
Iraq will continue to draw guerrilla fighters from Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen, you can call the terrorists if you wish but it was a problem that did not exist in Japan or Germany.
Where do we go from here?
Back to where we should have started from, a united international force that shows that opposition is not opposition to the United States, but opposition to the entire civilized world. President Bush will be back at the United Nations 'begging' for help tomorrow, but based on his record of diplomacy we can expect him to fail, the members of the U.N. Have seen this horse before.
It's Americas problem to solve.
The horse we were on, wandered out of the stream and into the rapids.
We need to change horses before we find ourselves going over the falls.

Right Winger said...

Nice pictures! Good Luck!

Bigandmean said...

Paul,
With all due respect, I'd rather keep riding the horse I'm on than saddle up your donkey.

Paul G. said...

B&M,
With all due respect, your horse is lame and blind.

Maine said...

Sorry, as this is unrelated to the above post, but I just had to say it.

Ala71, you're a proud right winger, but in your Blogger profile, Rage Against The Machine is listed as one of your favorite bands?

Doesn't it eat you up inside to sing along with the rock and roll tree-huggery? The angsty liberalism? This is the sort of stuff that keeps me up at night.

tescosuicide said...

Maine... It really sucks that the good musicians are usually libs - no reason to compromise our tastes. In the words of Laura Ingraham...."shut up and sing".

Paul, leave your horse alone dude.... wierdo.

redleg said...

Ala71

have a great vacation, the weather is beautiful down here.

TWD

I can't believe you are still behind your candidate. Kerry has just about flamed out. Your desperation to proove him the better candidate is coloring all of your arguments. You are better than this my friend. And stooping to calling a serving President Shrub is beneath you.

I would believe your arguments if Kerry could just find his convictions and stand up for them, but I have not been able to get that from him.

free0352 said...

Democrats must be so fed up with Kerry, kind of like we felt in the 96' election. Bush isn't so much winning the election as kerry is loseing it.

Paul G. said...

tescosuicide,

Thanks for taking time out of your family vacation to remember me.
Now give Ala71 her earrings back, turquoise isn't your color.

tescosuicide said...

I like you Paul. You're alright by me. Incidently I have not left for vacation yet..... Too much work here.

Tom said...

This we'll defend:

"The reason Kerry made Vietnam a part of the campaign is bumper stickers that say 'I support the President and our troops.' So if I don't support the president am I AGAINST the troops?"

You probably hear the adage "Only the good die young" and say to yourself, "Gee, does that mean I'm bad if I grow old?"

And you're accusing others of flawed reasoning.

Kerry only ever had the Viet Nam card to play because his subsequent experience as a lying anti-war gas bag along with his liberal record in the senate left him little if anything else to brag about.

Your party really wanted Dean, but he just didn't the have the finesse of a liberal moron like, say, Dukakis who could masquerade his left wing nonsense throught th primaries, convention and subsequent campaign. To his credit, the good doctor was honest in his ideology (and his mental imbalance), but the Democrats learned with Reagan that they will get creamed every time they pit an unabashed lib against a conservative. Besides, you fancy yourself an astute political observer and student of history. You know both parties, when faced with a choice between running a governor with executive experience that is basically a microcosm of the presidency and a member of the glorified high school debating society know as the US Senate, go for the former 99% of the time.

You ended up with the Conqueror of Southeast Asia on the ticket because there was no other viable alternative to Dean. Clark was a non-entity, Kucinich made Dean look like Ronald Reagan, the two token negroes were going nowhere and your party will never, ever run a Jew and risk alienating the anti-semitic Black votes you need so much.

Kerry's Viet Nam fetish predates Bush, this campaign, the War in Iraq, and 9-11. It's all he's ever done and now even that's questionable. He's overplayed the hand to such an extent and been parodied so much that the first reference he makes to Viet Nam in answer to a debate question will prompt the audience to pee itself with laughter.

Liberals wanted "anybody but Bush", and that's just what they got. Deal.

~Jen~ said...

One day we have got to all get together in real life and giggle at each other.

Tesco, I wish your wife would hurry up and come back!!!

Paul G. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ron Brynaert said...

"Can I just say how totally disgusted I am with the new moveon.org ad?! We have soldiers actively fighting in two separate theaters and they depict a soldier holding up his weapon in defeat…they wish! I would hope that if the tables were turned right now and I wanted the incumbent out…that I would not be wishing for the worst (even if it was Hillary). I would hope that I would be a better American than to wish for failure in Iraq (and use deaths for political gain & talking points), hope unemployment stopped falling, pray the economic recovery tanked and prayed to (Buda?) each night that Bin Laden stayed well hidden… Please let my hate never be so great that it overtakes my humanity!"

Can I just say how totally disgusted I am with the way that all you right-wing bloggers are perverting the meaning of the new Moveon.org ad. You all know damn well that it isn't meant to suggest that our soldiers are being defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's about how the Commander-in-chief has repeatedly lied about our reasons for going to war in Iraq and that that they are the ones who are paying the ultimate price for the deceptions and demagoguery. But...nooooo....you people get your sick,big and mean kicks by trying to portray the left as unpatriotic, un-American or immoral.

You "people" have the blood of over 1,000 of our soldiers on your hands, no matter how you try to spin it.

And you will.

Because that's what you do best.

Why Are We Back In Iraq?

redleg said...

Rab

Have you been there?

Do you know what kind of successes we are seeing each and every day? Do you understand what it means to have participated in freeing a nation from the reaches of abject tyranny? If you are basing your world view on what you see in the news and see from moveon you are basing your views on lies. Do you have any idea what it does to the thoughts and morale of American soldiers overseas hearing a presidential candiate and his organization decry that everything we are doing and have done in Iraq is a lie and should never have been tried? I have and I deplore your spirit. I don't expect you to understand, but our President did not lie to us. He may have based a judgement on bad intelligence, but I cannot say he made a mistake in freeing either Iraq or Afghanistan. It pity people like you who make me responsible for your well being. You don't seem worthy of the protection of men and women better than yourself.

Have you no shame sir?

Go on down to Green Ramp today and call someone a baby killer, why don't you? Some of those 1,000 dead were friends of mine and they did not die in vain. I have been there and you are not worthy to even say their names.

riceburner147 said...

A great article on the race, 10 reasons why Bush will win, 10 reasons Kerry will win. (I think his english is slightly flawed but thats OK) from a reporter in Jamaica.
http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20040926/focus/focus1.htm
or, i have the full text on my site.

~Jen~ said...

***Jennifer peeks in...sighs...pouts...and walks back to her blog***

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Yeah, what Jen said. Life just ain't the same without an ALa71 post. HURRY back!

Ron Brynaert said...

Redleg "Do you understand what it means to have participated in freeing a nation from the reaches of abject tyranny?"

On November 3rd I will.