Saturday, October 02, 2004

In His Own Words...

I notice that it was tough for the lefties to argue about the last post as it utilized all of John Kerry's own words...This is even better.
I believe that anyone that can pull the 'John Forbes Kerry' lever after hearing this needs some serious medication....Sybil rings a bell...
TWD, Rab, Jericho & Paul...spin away...

38 comments:

Kat said...

Gee...you beat me to it! I swear I was just listening to this and came right over here to leave it for everyone to hear.

I think this is the funniest.

McWizard said...

I see this morning that despite having contradicted every position he's ever taken on anything, *"Everything!? That's a whole lot!"* John Kerry has taken the high ground and started at politics square one "My opponent is a Liar." This is his first october surprise? Brilliant.

*Snoe's response to Alex in "The Black Stallion"*

Tammi said...

I don't know how you find these things, but I love you for it.

I've got to share that with more people. And no one can say it's spin. It's in his own words!!

this we'll defend said...

1. I didn't think it was "difficult" to "defend" Kerry in the previous post - it wasn't. It showed that Bush supporters don't and can't understand the difference between seeing Saddam as a threat and INVADING, that they can't see the difference between disarming Saddam as a good thing and thinking the way we did it was wrong.

African killer bees sting and kill several people. Bush and Kerry agree on need to destroy them. There is also a wasp nest in the attic, but nobody has been stung.

Kerry: Hey, there is a wasp's nest in the attic. They might sting us. We should remove that nest.

Bush: Yes we should. I want the authority to go after that wasp nest.

Kerry: As long as you do it carefully. And get those killer bees.

Bush: I promise. This will be easy, we will remove the nest at minimum cost with little damage.

Kerry votes to give Bush the authority to deal with wasp nest.

Bush consults with military experts, who tell him best way to remove nest is to block off the attic and send in insecticide. Bush says he wants to burn the house down. Military warns against this.

Bush ignores them, burns down entire neighborhood, 150 dead, 25 houses destroyed, wasps escape and begin stinging firemen struggling to put out fire. Killer bees left untouched.

Bush: Bush gives victory speech in front of banner reading: "We won! the wasp nest is destroyed!"

Kerry: You idiot! Why in the hell did you do that?

Bush: See, he first supported getting rid of the wasp nest, and now he claims he is against it. FLIP-FLOP. Didn't he know the killer bees were a threat? He even said he did - his OWN words. Those killer bees attacked us and killed several of us, I had to destroy the wasp nest. I want authority to give the firemen more hoses to fight the fire - 67 billion - oh, and 20 billion for my friends, you can't check on how I spend it. My plan to defeat the wasps is to drop "killer bee food" all over the place to attract them, and then use flamethrowers to destroy them. I never said we won, I don't know who put the banner up there. (news reports later confirm the White House made the banner and asked for it to be put up. Bush doesn't comment).

Kerry sponsors a bill to give firemen more hoses but no 20 billion for Bush's friends and disagrees with bee food/flamethrower plan. Kerry votes for his bill (the bill is defeated) and against Bush's bill (bill passes). Kerry anounces "I want our firemen to have what they need, but Bush's firehose bill is wrong. I am voting against it.

Bush: See, he voted AGAINST giving our brave firemen what they need to fight the wasp menace. We MUST defeat the bees.

Kerry: but I voted to give them the hoses before I voted against it. And wasps aren't bees - we need to get the bees. And ask for help from other fire depts to fight the fire!

Bush: See, flip-flop. Doesn't he know the bees are dangerous? That the bee attack changed everything? We HAD to burn the neighborhood down or the wasps would have killed all of us. The wasps support the bees you know. We must win the war against flying insects. (Bush ignores nuclear proliferation by ground insects, suggests june bugs are a menance). And we don't need those other firefighters, we already have assistance (points to 10 firemen out of 100 that are from other fire departments).

Fire spreads, bees grow in strength, more firemen get stung and die.

Bush gives speech at Army War college. Officers notably un-enthusiastic, clap politely, Bush pauses several times waiting for applause but the room is deadly quiet. Bush declares he is the only one who supports the troops and says if you love the military you must vote for him, if you hate the military vote Kerry. Army chief of staff retires in disgust, appointed successor refuses the position in protest and retires too, several other generals turn down the highest position in the Army because they refuse to work with Bush and Rumsfeld, for the first time in American history a retired general is recalled to active duty to become Army chief of staff. Bush declares "the military loves me." Ala71 believes him.

Hundreds of military heroes and two recent chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff declare their support for Kerry.

Bush repeats claim that supporting the military means voting for him, and that the military hates Kerry.

Kerry: your plan is losing, more and more bees are showing up, the fire is spreading, we must change our strategy, enlist more help from other fire depts, and saying we already have help because we have 10 firefighters from other countries is silly. We need more help. We shouldn't leave our firemen out there alone.

Bush: Silly, the ten guys are silly? Is that any way to build support? How dare you insult Polish firefighter Josef, a brave man! And the fire is being contained, there are fewer bees, we are winning, the situation has never been better. We must STAY THE COURSE and drop more bee food in order to win. Kerry first was for removing the wasps nest, now he is against it. He voted against giving the firemen what they need to fight the fire. He says that we should never have started the fire - that destroys the morale of the firefighters. It is no way to win the war, it helps the bees. Kerry thinks we can talk with the bees, and wouldn't fight them without permission from other fire depts.

Kerry: I think we should kill all the bees, and I never said we need ask permission - but we should fight them in a way that wins. You are making things worse. The wasp threat didn't justify this mess. And bees attacked us, not wasps.

Bush: I know the bees attacked us! See, he says fighting the bees is making things worse. He was for fighting the wasps nest and now he is against it. He voted against giving firemen what they need. He supported burning the house down but now claims he didn't. He admitted the wasps were a threat but now he says they weren't. He is a flip-flopper. I will stay the course. Questioning me weakens the war on flying insects. And he wouldn't protect us from the bees without a permission slip. He is weak, I am strong. Plus, he looks French. Everyone knows the French are our oldest enemy and have always been our enemy.

Ala71 wonders how anyone could vote for Kerry, a pro-wasp guy who doesn't support firemen and wants the bees to win. Plus, he is a flip-flopper - by his own words:

Kerry then: Hey, there is a wasp's nest in the attic. They might sting us. We should remove that nest. Kerry NOW: The wasp threat didn't justify this mess.

Kerry then: get those killer bees.
Kerry now: Bush's firehose bill is wrong. I am voting against it.

Kerry then: ask for help from other fire depts to fight the fire!
Kerry now: [the] 10 firefighters from other countries [are] silly.

Yeah, how could anyone vote for Kerry? He supports the bees.

this we'll defend said...

http://www.moveonpac.org/#, click on "watch our web video" to see Bush and Kerry - in their own words.

this we'll defend said...

http://www.moveonpac.org/#, click on "watch our web video" to see Bush and Kerry - in their own words.

tescosuicide said...

TWD, you are such a nerd. Has anyone seen this Mothers Opposing Bush silliness?? Quite comical, you should check it out.

this we'll defend said...

Tesco, I am indeed a nerd (I even watch C-span. Yep, Mr. excitement, that's me). But I haven't seen the one you are talking about. Link?

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

TWD, if you see a threat and do nothing, that's fine. Take that national security strategy and OWN it for a change, instead of flip-flopping to the hawk side of the aisle in contradiction of what you say the line or two before. There's nothing wrong with being a fruity, flowery peacenik. Hygienically-challenged hippy chicks will give you hugs and bran muffins and give you rides to the war protests in their Prius, even. And if you pontificate on the evils of Capitalism they might even sleep with you. What's not sweet about that? You'll have it goin' on with your own crowd if you just stay on-message with them.

Now, if you wouldn't mind explaining why you think removing Saddam from power essentially "burned down our entire neighborhood"? Perhaps some statistically valid cites of terrorist recruitment increases rather than just a self-asserted conclusions and folk tales about bees, for a change?

"We won! the wasp nest is destroyed!"

I see you made it all the way through Infantry school and still don't know what a "MISSION" is.

"Hundreds of military heroes and two recent chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff declare their support for Kerry."

You mean like John McCain? Oops, wrong hero. I think there were two that actually served with Kerry, and I saw Ego McPeak blather about it in an ad. This is an interesting hybrid of appeal to authority and appeal to convention. Maybe the birth of a new fallacy, called "appeal to career climbers".

"the military hates Kerry."

Straw man fallacy (again). The simple Bush response is that you're not going to get much of anybody behind you and following you in what you proclaim to be a "grand diversion" and "a lie". Just not gonna do it. It's not a "hatred" but a befuddlement on the part of many military members as to why Kerry is so eager to lead a cause that he obviously detests.

"Kerry: your plan is losing,"

Well, except for the Taliban being a non-entity in Afghanistan, Moqtada al Sadr having backed down, Saddam in the hoosegow, Saddam's sons both turning into bacteria, Zarqawi's #2 man vaporized, and Zarqawi himself on the run, and OH, a little bit of a thing called VICTORY in Samarra with one Coalition loss and 100 terrorists gone to meet the non-existent 72 virgins. Is there more to do? Certainly. There was after the invasion of Sicily, too. And I recall Montgomery not liking the way Patton did that one either, but y'know, tough titty.

Your kind of talk would have FDR declare defeat at the Battle of the Bulge. I say ..."NUTS!"

"Yeah, how could anyone vote for Kerry? He supports the bees."

That is, before he stopped supporting them.

Oh, but you watch C-Span, so that gives you extra gravitas around here. I watch C-Span too. I saw when they showed the Kerry testimony to the J. William Fulbright committee hearings on Vietnam. The whole thing. He disgusted me then, and that is ironically the one area where Kerry has remained consistent: in slandering his fellow veterans.

tescosuicide said...

TWD - no offense really, I just don't dig the 'bees' metaphor. The site is www.mob.org

Kat said...

Hey...TWD stole my analogy. I wrote this back in July about hornets' and their nests:

The Hornets' Nest: A Modern Day Parable
By Kat-Missouri

First, the "hornets' nest" is a good analogy to describe the terrorists groupings and activities. However, what these people tend to forget about the "hornets' nest", is that the longer you leave it alone, the bigger it gets and the more hornets are bred or join the nest.

Eventually, that little nest that was up in the corner of your front porch with just 10 or so hornets flying around and you just killing 1 or so every other week, is now a giant nest with hundreds, if not thousands, of the little bastards flying around and every time you step out your door they are swarming around you, trying to sting you and you are trying to fend them off. Getting stung more and more often because you have now let the nest go for so long, that knocking it down and destroying it will be even more dangerous. Now, instead of just going over with a can of bug spray and a broom, you are going to have to come up with some sort of strategy to protect yourself and knock it down and kill as many of them as possible before they can sting the hell out of you.

And you know you have to do it, because your kids can't even go out the front door anymore for fear of being stung and your wife is bitching at you for not doing something sooner.

There's always that brilliant guy that comes up with the "long distance" plan. You know, the one that thinks he can just get the high pressure hose out and spray it from 10 ft away and knock it down, maybe drown a few hornets while he's at it? That's the guy that forgets that the little bastards can fly and as soon as he knocks the nest down, a couple of hundred of them start swarming all over and stinging the shit out of him. That always seems to be the guy dressed in a Hawaiian print shirt, a pair of shorts and some birkenstock sandals. He doesn't think much about protecting himself. And as soon as he starts getting stung, he runs for the house, with the hornets flying all around him, trying to get inside out of the way. Of course, several of them make it in the house with him and proceed to terrorize his family while he runs around with a rolled up newspaper trying to swat them.

And worst yet, he didn't really destroy the hornets' nest. It's still in the front yard, with hundreds of them, angry and swarming around, looking for their next victim. God forbid that one of his neighbors comes out to get in his car or the kids come out to play and now they are getting stung, too, because he didn't really have a plan.

Hornets and Terrorists

That's how I see our current situation with the "Islamist" terrorists. There was once a small problem. We ignored it because we thought, "hmmm..This isn't really a problem. They can't do much to us, some little group of terrorists. They are waaaaay over there and we can take them out whenever. We'll just swat them if they get too close." Then we thought, "Damn, I think those terrorists are getting a little big for their britches, stinging us at the first World Trade Center bombing, then they had to go blow up the Kenyon and Nairobi embassies, then the USS Cole. Let's go drop a long range tomahawk missile on them. We can knock out the big nest and maybe get a few of the terrorists at the same time. Wouldn't it be great if we knocked off the "queen" bee at the same time?"

And of course what happened was that it just pissed the terrorists off and they followed us back into our house, our country and proceeded to dive bomb our people and the rest of the hornets...er..Terrorists started swarming all over the area and neighbors, looking for soft targets to sting and planning for the next time we were stupid and thought we could do some half assed job of destroying them and protecting ourselves.

Back to the hornets' nest...

Now, the hornets' nest is in the front yard, still swarming with hornets. Some of them have flown off to join the other nests that were already being built under the eaves of the house, by the back door. The nest in the tree that hangs over the kids' swing set. The nest in the eaves of your neighbors house, next to the garage door. They were ignored and were able to spread out through the neighborhood. Now the little bastards are everywhere and a new plan is required. Now, the neighbors have to be called and tell them not to come outside or send their kids out to play because this freaking thing is in the yard and they will be in danger.

The wife is now suggesting that you should call the pest control people (the UN) and get them to come out and take care of the nest for you. You call them up and they tell you they won't be able to come out to your place for at least a week because they are booked solid and they are going to have a meeting (security council) to discuss which jobs are a priority. The guy on the other (Kofi annan) end suggests that you leave them alone and maybe they'll just fly off under their own volition. He can have somebody drive by and check the situation out (unmovic) but he won't be able to do anything until the meeting is over.

Then the big shocker: how much is it going to cost to get the pest control guys to come out and take care of it? The guy on the other end names off a figure that makes you a little dizzy because you are still trying to pay for that window that was broken last week and the car needs repair and your wife wants to go on vacation to Disneyland or something. So, you thank the guy kindly through clenched teeth and hang up the phone, cursing pest control guys and their stupid meetings. Now you need another plan.

So, you call up your neighbors. First the guy on the right(Mexico) and he says he doesn't want anything to do with it. His door and garage are on the other side of the house and he's not worried about it. Besides, haven't you pissed the hornets off enough?

Then you call the guy on your left (Canada) and he is pissed at you. You stupid bastard. Why couldn't you leave good enough alone? Now his kids and wife might get stung. Why don't you wait until the pest control guys (UN) can come and take care of it? You try to explain that this will take too long, but he doesn't want to hear it. He'll take care of the nest in his eaves his own way, but you are shit out of luck if you think he is going to come over and help get rid of the big one.

The whole time, the nest is still active...buzz, buzz, buzz...And the hornets are trying to figure out how to get in your house. You've shut the doors and windows, but the vents and the attic fan are still open and it's just a matter of time before they figure out how to get in.

You call the guy across the street with the Peugeot and Citroen in his garage (France). He too thinks you are a stupid bastard for messing with the hornets nest. If you had just left them alone, they would have gone about their business and hardly bothered you. Besides, he has a hornets' nest on his porch and he just swats them when they get too close. He also thinks that the hornets can change they're behavior if you introduce some different things into their environment; like classical music. That should keep them calm. He says that his grandfather swears by that technique. No need to try and destroy the nest. He also wants to collect the honey (oil) from the hive because it tastes really good on his baguettes in the morning. Why couldn't you have just done the same? Besides, why should he get stung for YOUR mess?

You tell the guy across the street that you were thinking about getting the pest control guys (UN) to come and take care of the problem. This really pisses him (France) off because you will destroy his ability to get honey (oil) you insensitive bastard. You thank him for his time, through clenched teeth and hang up the phone, not saying what you want to say because he is on the neighborhood association board (NATO) with you and you might need his vote on a few things later on.

You call the guy next to him with the BMW (Germany) just to find out that the Citroen character has already called him and he is against the plan as well. Don't call the pest control guys (UN) because he doesn't like them spraying shit around in the neighborhood and he will sue if they do. He's on the neighborhood association board (NATO) as well and he will start something if you don't listen to him. Then he tells you the kicker...Citroen guy and he are part owners of the pest control company (UN) and knows the other owners well and he can assure you that you will NOT be getting any help from the pest control guys. Not only that, but he is cultivating his own little hornets' nest and wants to try Citroen guy's plan of changing their behavior by being "nice" to the hornets. He's sure they won't sting him and his family if he just let's them be and walks softly around them. He needs that honey (oil) for his struessel in the morning. At most, he is willing to let you come over and get the tools (military bases) he borrowed from you out of the garage.

The nest is still active...buzz, buzz, buzz...a couple of the smart ones have figured out how to get into your vents and attic fans but they haven't made it into the main part of the house. Just a matter of time before they sting you and your family. The queen bee is busy laying eggs and creating more of the pesky little bastards while you are trying to figure out how to destroy the nest on your own.

In the meantime, your wife (Colin Powell) is after you to call the pest control guys (UN) again. She doesn't want to hear any excuses about Citroen guy owning a piece of the business. Really, you all have had block parties together and you helped him with his ground hog problem a couple of years back, he can hardly want to keep you from getting rid of your problem. She's sure that he will not block your attempt to get the pest control guys out. You just have to show him how bad the problem is. Take some pictures. Show them around. As a matter of fact, she will go fax the pictures to them while you make the call.

When she leaves the room, you call up your brother (Donald Rumsfeld) and tell him about your problem. He says he has a plan and he'll be right over. The wife (Colin Powell) comes back and tells you that the pictures went well and she is sure if you will just call the pest control guys, they'll be right over. So you pick up the phone and call the pest control guys. They cut you off in mid sentence..."Sorry, the owners already called and said that we were not to help you out. Really, we suggest that you leave them alone and they will eventually fly off."

You hang up the phone and give your wife the evil eye because she just made you look like a schmuck for calling when you KNEW that it wasn't going to happen. You can't be really mad at her because she was just trying to help, but dammit, this is not getting the job done. Just putting it off. She insists that she called Citroen guy's wife, Dominique, and she swore that she would talk him out of blocking the pest control guys. Whatever. The wife throws up her hands and goes into the kitchen to start making phone calls to the other wives in the neighborhood to see if their hubbies might be able to help out.

Your brother (Donald Rumsfeld) finally drives up and makes a dash for the back door with the plans in his hand. You grab some brewskies and start looking them over. He says all you need is a couple of guys, some protective clothing, gasoline, blow torch, the riding lawn mower with the snow plow part, trash can with a lid and maybe plan on getting some grass seed and fertilizer because you are going to have to repair the yard (middle east) when you get done burning the hornets' nest. You are like, "What?" "Yep," your brother says, "the only way to get rid of these little bastards is to blow the nest to kingdom come and burn it where it lays." Otherwise, you risk the hornets spreading out like before. His friend Paul (Wolfowitz) had been studying the idea for some time and he thinks you have to go after the hornets where they breed. The big nests.

You now explain to your brother that you have other nests growing as you speak, but he warns you to keep your eye on the ball and take care of one nest at a time. You can knock off the smaller nests when you are done.

About that time, your wife comes back from the kitchen and tells you that she has spoke to the people down the street. They are sure that their hubbies will help out because you went down last year and helped them get rid of their red ant problem. Right about then, you noticed that the other neighbor from across the street just drove up in his Santana (Spain). He just got home from work and maybe if you catch him in time, the asshole next to him won't have been able to call and talk to him, too. You get on the phone and sure enough, while you're talking to him about the plan, you can hear his wife (socialists) in the background, yelling at him not to get involved because the hornets might fly over there and attack their children too. They have enough of their own problems. The kids need him to spend more time at home. Why should he risk getting stung for that guy across the street?

You can hear Santana and his wife having a whispering argument muffled through the phone, but Santana comes back on line and tells you that he can help. Not much, because his wife is pissed, but maybe he can hold the trash bag or something. He has definitely been swatting a few too many hornets himself lately.

Pretty soon, the guy with the Aston Martin (UK) returns your call and he is willing to help out. He doesn't have much, but he's been worried about the hornets, too. Then the neighbors down the road whose red ant problem you helped them with. And that guy with the Ferrari (Italy). He's kind of flashy and has a big mouth, but he's sort of likeable after you get a few beers in him. They are all gungho. Definitely need to get rid of the hornets, too.

Now you've got your neighbors (coalition) and your stuff ready to go. You put on a long sleeve shirt and pants this time, with some gloves and work boots. You have some mosquito netting from your last camping trip over your head topped off with your Dad's old fishing hat. The rest of the guys are decked out in the similar stuff.

You tell your wife and kids to shut all the doors behind you when you go. Your oldest child is jumping up and down, telling you to go "kick some hornets' butt". He got stung when the hornets chased you into the house and he wants those hornets DEAD! Your second oldest just looks at you hoping you have a good plan, but thinks that it is going to go bad and wonders why you can't just leave the hornets nest in the front yard. Your youngest child has always worried you. He wraps his arms around your legs and starts pummeling you, demanding to know why you have to go and destroy the hornets. They aren't all bad hornets. They didn't ALL sting you. Besides, there's a snake (North Korea) in the backyard that you should kill first and Citroen guy gave his kid (Iran) an alligator (nukes) for Christmas and it got loose in the neighborhood. Shouldn't you be killing that thing first? He's also sure that stupid Jewish kid down the road sent the hornets over to colonize your front porch, just to see you kill them.

You look at your wife, "Hon..Please, get the kid. Maybe when he's older he will understand why the hornets have to be destroyed. We'll get to the snake and the alligator tomorrow. First, the hornets' nest"

You all march out to the garage and get your tools. You have your friend with the Aston Martin jump on the riding lawn mower. The damn thing is kind of old and you have to give it a push to pop the clutch. You grab the gasoline and the blow torch. Santana has the garbage can with the lid and your friends from down the road that used to have the red ant problem grab some rakes and a shovel. Your brother hands you a walk talky with low batteries and tells you he will direct your actions from the safety of his car.

In the meantime, your youngest child runs into the bedroom, grabs some crayons and paper and makes a sign that he hangs in your front picture window: HORNET KILLER! Your oldest child is cheering you on and the middle one just stares at you through the window, sure that you are going to make the hornets mad and they will just get stung some more. The middle child and the youngest child are already imagining getting a step daddy that won't go messing with the hornets and will stay inside and play with them. Your wife is looking through the file cabinets for the health and life insurance should something happen to you.

Your neighbors are all looking out their windows, staring at you and waiting for you to get stung. They are thinking that it is going to be real funny to watch you get stung. Some even have their video cameras out, so they can record you killing the innocent hornets and getting stung. This will make one hell of a story to play on the 6 o'clock news.

Finally, you push on to the hornets nest. Quick as lightning, you dowse the nest with gasoline. Then you blow torch it and watch it go up in flames. Hundreds of the little bastards get burnt up instantly. Some start flying off and others try to attack you and your friends. Everyone is smacking them as fast as they can. Finally, the fire burns down and your friend on the lawn mower, uses the snow plow to push the hornet's nest towards the trash can and the guys from down the street with shovels and rakes push it into the trash can that Santana is holding.

Suddenly, Santana's wife screams. Two of the children were stung by some hornets that made it over to their house. She is now yelling at him to get his ass back to the house. She has already called a lawyer and is arranging to divorce him for getting involved with that bastard across the street and endangering their children. The poor schmuck tries to explain that the kids would have gotten stung sooner or later if he didn't help with the hornets' nest, but she is having no part of it. He drops the lid on the trash can and starts walking away. You feel for the guy, but you already knew he was going to get a divorce because his wife had been fooling around with the pool guy (Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's Socialist Party) for the last year and you just didn't have the heart to tell him.

Aston Martin's wife is yelling at him, too. Did he get stung? No. Well neither did she or the kids. Why did he put himself in danger when they could have been safe and sound in their house? What if the hornets now come down the street and get them? Aston Martin just rolls his eyes and waves to the wife. "I'll explain it later", he says.

In the meantime, your brother walks over with a friend (George) who had been hiding in the car. His friend is an expert on hornets, he thinks. He looks down at the blackened nest and pronounces, "The queen bee isn't here." You are like, "What?!" "Sorry", he replies, "you must have missed her." Now your eyes start flying around to the other hornets' nests in the yard, wondering which one she ran off to and which one you should knock down next. Just then, your brother in law (Bremer) pulls up in his pick up truck. Your wife must have called him. He walks over and looks down at the big black spot in the yard (middle east). "Damn. I didn't think you would make this big of a mess. I only brought a scoop of seed and a handful of fertilizer."

You look a little cross at him, because you are still trying to figure out the next move to get rid of the rest of the hornets and he is talking about fixing the yard. But, you know you have to do it because, if you don't, the neighborhood association (NATO) is going to send you letters and start trying to fine you for making their area look bad. And they'll do it too, because you have now just made them look like a bunch of punks for just hanging out in their houses while you killed the hornets not to mention their pet project of cultivating hornets might be messed up.

You turn to your brother in law (bremer) and ask him what it will take. He starts reeling off a list of stuff a mile long. You can't just plant some seed and fertilize it and expect the yard to look nice. You are going to have to take up the whole section, roots and all, put down some new dirt (reconstruction), some sod (new government), some weed killer (democracy), a large amount of fertilizer (money) and you don't have all the tools for that. You ask brother in law how much it will cost. After hem-hawing around a few minutes, he tells you a figure.

Well, CRAP! The car repairs are definitely going to have to wait and the wife is going to be PISSED when you tell her that the vacation is off. They are just going to have to stay home and enjoy the pool. You look over at the picture window and wave to your wife at which time you notice that the window is half full of crayon signs saying: YOU LIED! HORNETS DIED! HORNET KILLER! IT'S A ZIONIST PLOT TO TAKE OVER THE NEIGHBORHOOD! IT'S ALL ABOUT THE HONEY! WE WANT A NEW DADDY! KERRY FOR DADDY! (WTF?) Who is Kerry? You definitely need to talk to your wife. Your youngest child is in serious need of some therapy.

You tell the brother in law to get started and write him a check. Aston Martin says he'll leave the tools there, but he has got to go home and try to explain to the wife why the hornets had to be killed. Your other friends, who had the red ant problem, are busily cleaning up whatever they can and swatting a few hornets that are still buzzing in the area.

You turn to your brother, Donald, and tell him to come over tomorrow. You need to start planning to get rid of the other hornets. You ask him if he knows anybody that can coral a snake and lasso an alligator. He thinks he has some people in his palm pilot that might be able to do the job for cheap. Then, trudge into the house. You look like hell because you took a few stings to the face and neck where you weren't well protected. The oldest child runs over and gives you a hug. You're a hero and they wouldn't trade you for another Daddy in the whole world. The middle child looks at you and nearly feints. You were stung, just like they told you would happen and you didn't get the queen bee. What good was destroying the hornets nest if you didn't get the queen bee? Maybe a new, smarter Daddy is a good idea. Maybe the new Daddy could figure out how to do it without getting stung. Whatever. You are sure they might come around with some explanation and you put that in the back of your mind to take care of tomorrow.

The youngest is still marching around with signs, chanting. You take them upstairs because it's bed time and when you open the door, they have pictures of Che Gueverra, Fidel Castro and Michael Moore posted on the wall. Worst yet is the Palestinian flag and the little doll with a yamuka on it's head and some stick pins all over it. This kid is definitely going to therapy. First thing in the morning if you can help it.

You go into the bathroom and doctor up your stings. The wife (Colin Powell) comes in and tells you that she is still trying to talk to Dominique and Helga to convince them that the hornet killing fest was a good idea and that they should talk their husbands into getting rid of their hornets, too. You grunt and continue to fix up the stings, thinking, "that will be a cold day in hell." But you know that those hornets are going to have to go too, if the neighborhood is going to be safe again. This is going to be a long, hard row to hoe. You wonder if your raise will cover all the damages?

Finally, you sit down in the recliner with a brewskie and the remote control. Need to catch some news and relax. You hit the first channel, CNN (Communist News Network). What the hell? Your youngest child has been playing with the remote again. The screen shows a few clips of you setting the nest on fire and then your friends swinging their arms wildly at what appears to be nothing in the air. The reporter comes on, "Neighborhood was turned into an inferno today when a resident decided to kill a few bees that were alledgedly stinging his family. Bees are indigenous to the area and have lived there for a long time. Some of the neighbors were shocked to see the bees attacked so viciously. Reports from the local vetenarians hospital, where the injured and dead bees were taken by some of the concerned neighbors, indicate that most of the bees were just drones going about their business when they were attacked by the angry resident with fire for no apparent reason. As many as 2 million innocent drone bees might have been killed. The angry resident was stung by the resistance bees and had to be taken to the hospital. Unsure of his condition at this time. Back to you, Christiana."

Uhhh...Were these guys talking about your neighborhood and the HORNETS that had been stinging you and your family for weeks? Who were they talking about? Innocent drone bees? Were there any such thing? Who the hell went to the hospital?

Click to the next channel: Hornet TV (Al-Jazeera). That's it! If that little pain in the ass touches the remote again, you are going to have to spank him! Reporter Hornet comes on: "Buzzzzzz, buzz-buzz-buzz, buzzzz..." You turn on the caption just as a close up picture of a hornets' nest on fire and burning and burnt hornets laying on the ground comes on the TV. The caption reads: "Millions upon millions of of innocent drones were murdered today by an ugly, mean giant who wanted the hornets' nest for himself. Hornets at the scene report that the giant killed mostly female drones and baby drones without stingers. The angry hornets report that there were no militant drones with stingers in the area at that time. "

Cut to a scene with hornets in balaclavas and headbands. "The hornets are swearing vengeance on the ugly, mean giant. They promise to sting the giant's children in their eyes, nose and mouth until their heads swell up and fall off. The spiritual hornet, Buzzallah Buzzamed, has issued a buzzwa against all ugly, mean giants everywhere and calls for all true hornets to rise up and sting the giants where ever they are. Stinging the giants until their heads swell up and fall off is condoned by the holy hornet book, the Buzran." Cut to a scene of Santana's house, with the children running around and close up of the hornets stinging them repeatedly and then falling to the ground. "The hornet resistance killed three thousand giants today in honorable hornet resistance. Buzzallah Buzzamed gives prayers for the martyred hornets that give their lives in the name of Buzzallah, by martyring themselves when the stinger is lost. Buzzallah bless them."

Ok...This is really buzzarre. Innocent hornets? Just a bunch of female drones and baby drones with no stingers? Three thousand "giants" killed? Where the hell were they reporting from? Report continues:

"Hornets, mud daubbers, wasps and other bees from the area are sending aid to the families of the martyred hornets. Some are packing now to go help their fellow resistance hornets against the giants. "

Shit! Alright, Citroen guy was partly right about stirring up the hornets' nest, but what were you supposed to do? Stand around and watch the nest get bigger until it took over your whole front porch? Wait until your family was stung so bad they had to go to the hospital? Maybe you could have just moved out and let the hornets have your house?

Click on Fox Watch. Reporter, "In a stunning victory over the evil hornets, one resident finally took it upon himself to destroy the hornets nest on his front porch. Reports indicate that as many as one thousand hornets were killed today. Anonymous sources, close to the resident, indicates that the queen bee got away. Sources indicate that additional assistance from other neighbors may be required to find and destroy the rest of the hornets' nests. Supplies and money for such a project are low, but the sources say they will continue to strike the hornets where ever they are found. Fox Watch was able to obtain secret recordings of Citroen guy calling the pest control guys and telling them not to assist the resident with his problem. According to anonymous sources at the pest control headquarters, the pest control guys were more than willing to abstain from assisting the resident as secret documents show they were taking pay offs from the hornets in honey.

In other news, a Jewish boy in the neighborhood had to be taken to the hospital when he suddenly fell down on the ground clutching his head. According to his parents, he had been complaining of pain for several days. Later, a lone hornet apparently made it into their house and stung the boy in the face. He is in stable condition and his parents are planning to put up hornet blocking screens all through the house to insure that the hornets never get in again."

Ok...Now you've had enough of this crap. Time for bed. You are going to have to get up early and finish taking care of the hornets. Then there's the yard to be fixed up and you hope like hell your brother knows somebody who can take care of a snake and an alligator roaming around. How are you going to convince that dumbass across the road that hornets don't make honey, honey bees do and he needs to get off his ass and help you get rid of the hornets at his house? Doesn't he know that only honey bees can be cultivated? Hornets don't do anything but sting you?

You lay down in bed, next to the wife who has her back to you. She's pissed now because you and your stupid hornet escapade has made her friends mad at her. Whatever. You turn off the light and close your eyes. Just as you drift off to sleep...buzzzz, buzzzzz, buzzzzz. Dammit! Some of the bees have made it into your house. Add that to your list of things to track down in the morning. Maybe you should just create your own "hornet watcher group" who will help you track down the hornets? Does anybody speak buzz? You are definitely going to make sure that the hornets don't come back to your neighborhood and sting you or your family. Even if it's only you who goes around with the gasoline and the blow torch.

Now close your eyes. You have a lot of work to do tomorrow.

Take that TWD...

this we'll defend said...

Jeez, Kat, that was TWD in length.

Bottom line: Saddam was contained and growing weaker by the day, and the result we see now (increasing chaos in Iraq) was predicted all along by the US Army, which was ignored. The Army also felt that Saddam was not a threat that justified invasion, but what does the Army know about war anyway? After all, it isn't like Gen. Shinseki specialized in warfare, or had experience in occupying a hostile land (Kosovo), and it isn't like the State Department (Powell) knows anything about foreign affairs.

Cigsmokman breaks out the old "peacenik" argument. He says if I see a threat and do nothing, that is my business. Again, there were many options between appeasement and invasion - and containing Saddam was doing something (it turns out it was more successful than I even thought - which is why no WMDs) just as we contained the USSR in the Cold War. Cig would have launched the missiles instead of "appeasing" Russian by not invading. Thank God Bush wasn't in the White House during the Cold War.

Cig knows I support victory in Iraq and want to hunt down and kill the terrorists wherever they are - even if it means ignoring the sovereignty of that bastion of democracy, Pakistan. Yet he still calls me a "fruity, flowery peacenik."

If you haven't made up your mind on this debate yet, consider how it looks that I make a valid criticism, but the response to a former Army drill sergeant that is pissed we didn't deploy 150,000 troops to Afghanistan in Oct '01 is "fruity, flowery peacenik." Obviously that argument (anybody that doesn't agree with Bush is a hippie) won't fly.

He says "why you think removing Saddam from power essentially "burned down our entire neighborhood"? Perhaps some statistically valid cites of terrorist recruitment increases rather than just a self-asserted conclusions and folk tales about bees, for a change?"

Well, for the 17th time, here it is: Bounding the Global War on Terrorism found at http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/pubresult.cfm?pubid=207.

IRAQ AND VIETNAM: DIFFERENCES, SIMILARITIES, AND INSIGHTS at http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/pubresult.cfm?pubid=377.

Strategic Consequences of the Iraq War: U.S. Security Interests in Central Asia Reassessed at http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/pubresult.cfm?pubid=383.

And here is more: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/04/07/al_qaidas/index_np.html

http://pages.zdnet.com/trimb/id61.html

I guess that is enough for now. Google "terrorist recruitment" for more. There are lots of sources. They won't be found on Freerepublic or Fox.

He says I don't know what a mission is, but I don't see his point - the mission was NOT to overthrow Saddam but to win the war on terror. Iraq hurt that effort. If the mission WAS to overthrow Saddam then 1) why does the President keep calling Iraq part of the war on terror, and 2) why haven't we declared victory? After all, we DID accomplish that "mission."

He says that only two of the "military heroes" actually served with Kerry, thinking I was alluding to the Swiftboat veterans who served with him (all of the enlisted men who served under Kerry - ALL - support him, by the way, not just two) but I was referring to this list (scroll down quickly, it is a LONG list of "fruity, flowery peaceniks.": (source: http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0915b.html)

Veterans for Kerry-Edwards
National Steering Committee
Co-Chairs

Lt. General Edward Baca (ret.)

Paul Bucha
Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient

General Wesley Clark (ret.)
USA, Supreme Allied Commander, NATO

Admiral William Crowe (ret.)
Fmr. Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

Senator Daniel Inouye
Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient

Lt. General Claudia Kennedy (ret.)

Fmr. Senator Bob Kerrey
Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient

General Merrill “Tony” McPeak (ret.)
Fmr. Air Force Chief of Staff

General John Shalikashvili (ret.)
Fmr. Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

Hershel “Woody” Williams
Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient

Rand Beers
Fmr. Special Asst. and Senior Director for Combating Terrorism, National Security Council

Major General Jack Bradshaw (ret.)

Rear Admiral Herbert Bridge (ret.)

Brigadier General Rosetta Burke (ret.)

John Carney
Past National Commander, Veterans of Foreign Wars

Rear Admiral William “Bill” Center (ret.)

Colonel Roxanne Cheney (ret.)

Lt. General Daniel Christman (ret.)

Ronald Conley
Past National Commander, American Legion

Brigadier General Tom Daniels (ret.)

Colonel Thomas Davis (ret.)

Jimmy Dean
Past National Commander, American Legion

Brigadier General Richard DeMara (ret.)

Bill Detweiler
Past National Commander, American Legion

Major General Donald Edwards (ret.)

Brigadier General Evelyn “Pat” Foote (ret.)

Major General James Fretterd (ret.)

Rear Admiral Roland Guilbault (ret.)

Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn (ret.)

Major General Charles Henry (ret.)

Silvestre Herrera
Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient

General Joseph Hoar (ret.)

Rear Admiral John Hutson (ret.)

Major General Randolph “Randy” Jayne (ret.)

Major General Nicholas Kafkalas (ret.)

Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr (ret.)

Lt. General Donald Kerrick (ret.)
Fmr. Deputy National Security Advisor

Keith Kruse
Past National Commander, American Legion

Ray Mabus
Fmr. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Fmr. Governor

Brigadier General Donald McAuliffe (ret.)

Richard “Dick” McCool
Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient

Brigadier General David L. McGinnis (ret.)

Major General Melvyn Montano (ret.)

John Moon
Past Commander-in-Chief, Veterans of Foreign Wars

Darrell “Shifty” Powers
WWII – 101st Airborne, Easy Company (the 'Band of Brothers') - several others as well, I didn't include them all)

Brigadier General Virgil A. Richards (ret.)

Larry Rivers
Past Commander-in-Chief, Veterans of Foreign Wars

Major General Gerald Sajer (ret.)

Vice Admiral John Shanahan (ret.)

Jeffrey Smith
Fmr. General Counsel, CIA

Rear Admiral Alan M. Steinman (ret.)

Brigadier General Preston Taylor (ret.)

Bruce Thiesen
Past National Commander, American Legion

Admiral Stansfield Turner (ret.)

Colonel Lew Tyree (ret.)

Brigadier General Robert Westphal (ret.)

General Johnnie Wilson (ret.)

Brigadier General Jack Yeager (ret.)

I guess they all sit around singing "Kumbaya" and thinking of ways to weaken America.

I guess this also shows how Kerry won't get any support if he keeps insisting the decision to invade was a mistake - because it "hurts the morale of the troops" don't you know. They prefer to be lied to.

He calls the Taliban a non-entity. I guess nobody told the Taliban, but you can google that one, this is already pretty long.

He says "Your kind of talk would have FDR declare defeat at the Battle of the Bulge. I say ..."NUTS!"

Well, commanders who performed poorly were relieved in combat - for instance, the general in charge of the Kasserine Pass disaster was replaced by Patton. But Bush wouldn't have done that - he would have "stayed the course." And who is declaring defeat? See, criticize the terrible mistakes Bush has made, point to reality (like the Taliban in Afghanistan NOT being vanquished, like no Osama, like the growing insurgency that Army officers got in trouble for calling a guerilla war just six months ago) and you are "declaring defeat." Hmmm.

He then repeats the canard of Kerry "slandering" his fellow vietnam veterans in his testimony before the Senate in 1971. See http://buggieboy.blogspot.com/2004/08/kerry-and-anti-war-movement.html for the truth.

So he was wrong about everything - just as Bush has been (no WMDs, no easy victory, no coalition (oops, did I forget Poland?), no Osama, staggering debt, unemployment, you name it.

But Dems are all socialist unpatriotic wimpy flag-burners who want to give France a veto, you know (see list above for how silly that really is).

ALa said...

TWD....silly boy...check out:
http://vets4bush.com/

80,000 and running...
note on page-
Expect a few days delay on your name appearing -there are too many coming in to have them up the same day....

this we'll defend said...

Interesting. I listed the generals and admirals and medal of honor winners to make the point that Kerry is not a wild-eyed child of the left, that the democratic party is not a bunch of "peaceniks" as she (and Cigman) keep insisting, and so she points out that Bush also has the support of veterans. Talk about missing the point.

Of course Bush proudly lists the many generals and admirals who are on his leadership team: one general (Gen. Pat Brady) and one admiral (Admiral Jerimiah Denton). Here is the entire list (no kidding):

Senator Bob Dole, The Honorable Anthony Principi (U.S. Navy, Ret.), U.S. Congressman Sam Johnson (U.S. Air Force, Ret.), Medal of Honor Recipient General Pat Brady, (U.S. Army, Ret.) Admiral Jeremiah Denton (U.S. Navy, Ret.), Staff Sergeant Donovan Chapman (U.S. Air Force, Veteran), Colonel Jorge Rodriguez (U.S. Army, Ret.) Chief Warrant Officer Michael Durant (U.S. Army, Ret.).

That website also points out that troops can have political bumper stickets on their cars (something legal but considered WRONG by most apolitical active duty officers) and has pictures of Bush giving campaign speeches surrounded by troops in formation (something ALL of our previous presidents have had the wisdom and good taste not to do since the troops have no choice and aren't showing support for candidate Bush by appearing at his speeches but are there at the orders of the commander-in-chief Bush regardless of their political affiliation).

And then there is the list of names (80K strong) - but of course Kerry has Veterans for Kerry (http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/veterans/) and Kerry plans on one million veterans.

There is also http://www.veteransunitedforkerry.com/vote/index.php

But, yes, the vote in the military community leans toward Bush, because military people tend more toward the conservative (and Swiftvet lies hurt Kerry - Bush will do ANYTHING to win).

But, as I said, my point is that Kerry and Kerry's supporters are not hippies.

Oh, and while Bush does enjoy the support of one general and one admiral, Kerry has, as I said:

2 chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff - I will give Bush one assuming Colin Powell will endorse him. :)

The former Army and Air Force chiefs of staff. For Bush? No chiefs of staff have come out in favor of Bush. And what h.

A former head of Central Command has come out in favor of Kerry. For Bush? Not even that well-known republican (and great general) Gen. Schwarzkopf has announced he WILL NOT endorse Bush - he did in 2000. I guess he is a hippy peacenik now.

On Bush's behalf, a stud of a man, Gen. Charles Krulak, endorsed Bush in 2000. He is now CEO of MBNA. I haven't heard anything about him endorsing Bush in 2004, but if he did I would still respect him. And still vote for Kerry. Does anyone know where Gen. Krulak, former Commandant of the Marines, stands this year?

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

LOL, I just heard that mp3 clip on the radio tonight. (I couldn't get it to play in my browser, probably a bad player version on my laptop.)

Now to TWD: "Saddam was contained and growing weaker by the day"

And that means no vote for the use of force was necessary, on John Kerry's part. If he thought no force was necessary, he really didn't have to flip-flop like he did. He could have just said what you just said, in the FIRST place.

"After all, it isn't like Gen. Shinseki specialized in warfare, or had experience in occupying a hostile land (Kosovo), and it isn't like the State Department (Powell) knows anything about foreign affairs."

And it isn't like the CIA knows weapons of mass destruction when they see them and report on them...

"Again, there were many options between appeasement and invasion"

Not if he was a weak non-threat and getting weaker by the day. Then the only smart option was to IGNORE him. Well, and ignore the CIA too... in a post-9/11 world... and of course insipid liberals wouldn't be screaming about THAT at all, LOL.

"Cig would have launched the missiles instead of 'appeasing' Russian by not invading."

Straw Cig maybe. The Russian threat was dealt with properly most of the time. JFK very luckily turned out to be right about Kruschev during the missile crisis, and THAT was against the advice of your "all-knowing godlike Army commanders who can do no wrong".

I'd have been a little less reluctant to hit Russian targets in Vietnam, and I'd just deal with it by denying they were Russian targets--call them NVA instead. Offer to help Russia's plausible deniability in the matter.

"Thank God Bush wasn't in the White House during the Cold War."

Yeah, he'd have done something stoooooopid like invade Grenada, or Panama.

"Cig knows I support victory in Iraq and want to hunt down and kill the terrorists wherever they are"

Which makes you an Army of One in the Democratic party. That whole "let's kill terrorists caucas" gets fairly well shouted down by the "peace at all costs" faction, out on the street. That is, if there were any showing at all of a "let's kill terrorists" faction out on the street that wasn't also waving GOP signs.

You are in good company with some vegan lesbian with more facial piercings than years holding a real job, blathering about how evil Capitalism and war and red meat and "corporations" all are. I suggest you notify her that you're in her party and you want to kill terrorists and don't give a damn what she says about it.

" - even if it means ignoring the sovereignty of that bastion of democracy, Pakistan."

Was this before or after you prattled endlessly about how alliances are the most important and sacred asset we have, never to ever be sacrificed for anything whatsoever?

"Yet he still calls me a 'fruity, flowery peacenik.'"

I guess you voted for extinguishing alliances before you voted against it. Or vice-versa?

And then voted against war with a dictator before you voted for it? Which came first, your flip or your flop?

This is what you offer as statistically valid findings of accelerated terrorist recruitment:

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/pubresult.cfm?pubid=207.

A search of the pdf document for the word "recruit" comes up with three hits:

1) "The nature, modus operandi, and recruiting base
of al-Qaeda make it a very diffi cult enemy to subdue decisively
through counterterrorism operations."

2) "Persistent and successful counterterrorist operations could
deter an increasing number of potential recruits from joining by
simply advertising the grave personal risk involved."

3) "the targets of U.S. infl uence are
the many elements of the al Qaeda system, which comprises
leaders, lieutenants, fi nanciers, logisticians and other facilitators,
foot soldiers, recruiters, supporting population segments, and
religious or otherwise ideological fi gures."

Hmmmmm... none refer to any valid statistical analysis or any nugget of hard intelligence regarding rates of recruitment before versus after the war in Iraq.

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/pubresult.cfm?pubid=377.

This one got 11 hits for the word "recruit". Let's see... looking... browsing... nope. Nothing solid there either.

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/pubresult.cfm?pubid=383.

Nope, just one hit there... "According to First Deputy
Prime Minister Kurmanbek Osmonov, who is also Kyrgyzstan’s
Justice Minister, Hizb-ut-Tahrir wanted to seize power in Kyrgyzstan
and, to this end, had been expanding “its spying and propaganda
activities.” The group was focusing its efforts on recruiting young
people and was forging alliances with other opposition groups, as
well as the IMU and Uighur organizations."

Says nothing about Al Qaeda recruiting as a result of the Iraq war.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/04/07/al_qaidas/index_np.html

Now you're quoting SALON? Oh give me a break. I suppose I should counter with NewsMax and we'll both pretend our sources are non-biased, right?

http://pages.zdnet.com/trimb/id61.html

PROGRESSIVE bullshit propaganda piece. You're scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

Keep trying though. I'm sure Dan Rather can help you scare something up.

"mission was NOT to overthrow Saddam but to win the war on terror."

Bin Laden was a terrorist and Saddam was a terrorist. To say they are mutually exclusive is specious. Japan was an Axis power and Germany was an Axis power. And Italians and some guys from India too. To defeat the Axis powers didn't necessarily mean one was forbidden from landing in Sicily. Nor did that "hurt the effort".

"why haven't we declared victory? After all, we DID accomplish that 'mission.'"

You still don't know what a "mission" is, do you? A mission can successfully be accomplished but it would still be premature to say a whole battle or a whole war is a "victory".

If, for example, the D-Day MISSION was successful, that didn't mean it was time to celebrate V-E day yet. Definitely tell the troops that MISSION was ACCOMPLISHED, but still hold out the prize of victory and glory, for when that happens later.

NOW do you know what a MISSION is, you Infantry Drill Sergeant you?

On your list of veterans supporting Kerry, why yes, they disagree with the 80,000 or so signed on supporting Bush. I guess we're not in lockstep as a group now, are we? We veterans differ. Imagine that.

"I guess this also shows how Kerry won't get any support if he keeps insisting the decision to invade was a mistake - because it 'hurts the morale of the troops' don't you know. They prefer to be lied to."

Offering Shalikashvili a SecDef job isn't necessarily going to place the morale of the troops first and foremost in his mind. And McPeak aways did want to be CJCS. He thought he got snubbed in favor of Colin Powell, and this is his payback. Visiting the sin of the father upon the son, in his case.

"commanders who performed poorly were relieved in combat"

But not FDR as you demand? Pish! Didn't they realize a Drill Sergeant in 2004 would look back on them and call them every name in the book for not replacing FDR every time a platoon leader got lost in the Ardennes?

"But Dems are all socialist unpatriotic wimpy flag-burners who want to give France a veto, you know"

Most of them, anyway. The ones who'll rule the roost of a Kerry presidency, and lead him around like a toy balloon, threatening a primary defeat if he doesn't ask "how high" when they say "jump".

"Interesting. I listed the generals and admirals"

Yes, INTERESTING. That they all have cushy higher-up Pentagon jobs in their cross-hairs, and you think it's all about national security. That wet stuff you feel on your back when they tell you it's raining? It's not.

"and Swiftvet lies hurt Kerry"

That's still he-said-he-said and you know it. We'll probably never know which of those opposing versions of those river boat stories is lying, and it's ridiculous to waste time on it. One thing is NOT a lie: Kerry slandered vets in 1971. I saw it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears. Thurston Howell III accent and all.

ALa said...

TWD:
I couldn’t find any endorsement from his, but I found this over at the Mudville Gazette…(it’s a marine not voting for kerry because of him):
“John F. Kerry, having previously declared that he can become president without support from the South, now implies that votes from Guard and Reserve members aren't wanted either. Is he a realist or a fool?
"I've said since the day I came back from Vietnam that it was not an issue to me if somebody chose to go to Canada or to go to jail or to be a conscientious objector or to serve in the National Guard or elsewhere."
This quote and many others like it, uttered many times through the years and displaying a complete disregard (if not contempt) for those who served, are prompting many to make comments like this one from fellow MilBlogger Joe Carter:
I'm so appalled that if this man becomes President then I will leave the Corps at the end of my enlistment. Though I'll only have three years until retirement, I'd forego that honor to keep from having to serve under Kerry. I refuse to serve under a Commander in Chief who has besmirched the reputations of men I consider heroes, men such as Gen. Charles Krulak and Adm. James Stockdale.”

ALa said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ALa said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
this we'll defend said...

Well, Cig, I expected better from you.

The idea that the vote wasn't needed because Saddam was growing weaker ignores that the President asked for the authority in order to (he said) convince Saddam to allow the inspectors to return and to comply with the UN resolutions. Most people expected saber-rattling and the use of force only as a last resort - and in the past saber-rattling WAS effective. Bush then invaded instead (although the inspectors did return and it turns out Iraq WAS complying - our past saber-rattling was even better at deterring him than we knew).

Cig says it was ok for Bush to ignore the Army and State Department when they very clearly warned against invasion and predicted exactly what would happen because: "the CIA knows weapons of mass destruction when they see them and report on them..."

But CIA director Tenet said in February of this year that the CIA reported to Bush "Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009." He says that the CIA "never said there was an imminent threat." (entire text of the speech at http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/breaking_news/7882736.htm) And then there are Cheney's unprecedented visits to analysts at Langley, the Richard Clarke book, the recent book by a CIA officer who says the administration forced down the throats of the CIA what they wanted to hear, the 'yellowcake uranium' state of the union message (which had already been discredited), and today (just hours ago) the Condoleeza Rice controversy about whether she knew the "aluminum tubes" used to show Saddam was going nuclear (despite the CIA saying it would be 2007 at the earliest) were actually unsuitable - she says she never read the intelligence reports that discounted it. What the fuck was she reading then?

So Kerry, faced with a Saddam that the CIA says could (maybe) have a nuclear weapon in 2007 if he doesn't allow inspectors back in and begin complying with the UN resolutions, has a President saying "give me the authority to use force and I can really make a credible threat against him - but don't worry, force will be a last resort, and if we do go to war it will be a grand coalition just like my Daddy led." He gives him the authority - only after a speech in which he warns that he is NOT supporting unilateral US action and that force must be a last resort, and that he expects the President will be able to avoid using it - and then Bush invades. Even though Iraq DID comply. And we are doing 90% of the fighting and dying. And it turns out there was NO nuclear program at all - the evidence was cherry-picked to suggest there was, but Bush knew better.

Yeah, that flip-flopping Kerry.

The first study which Cig didn't read but instead merely looked for the word "recruit" says much about what was expected in the insurgency (it was published in May 2004). He says there was nothing in there about increasing the terrorist threat because he didn't find the word "recruit." I quote:

"Saddam Hussein’s overthrow brought foreign terrorists into Iraq and gave them a freedom of movement that was previously unthinkable. Under Saddam’s regime, a pervasive and effective internal security apparatus blocked any serious insurgent activity, and 8 years of war with the Islamic Republic of Iran eliminated any
potential sympathy Saddam might have had for Islamic extremists no matter how anti-American they might be. Moreover, some of Saddam’s most dedicated domestic enemies were Islamic radicals who engaged in anti-regime terrorism. Foreign fighters are currently entering Iraq from Syria and Iran, countries that have been historic rivals. They are also believed to have infiltrated from Saudi Arabia, while some have traveled from Yemen..." It goes on at some length.

It also says in another part "the insurgency’s manageability could dramatically change if significant segments of Iraq’s majority Shi’ite population rally to
radical elements within their community and take up arms against U.S. forces. The April 2004 uprising of politically radicalized Shi’ites in Baghad, Kufa, Najaf, and other cities in southern Iraq killed dozens of U.S. troops and now threatens to open a Shi’ite front in what until then had been a primarily Sunni-based insurgency."

Looks like the report says we made new enemies and helped old ones to me.

He says the generals were wrong during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and says JFK went against the advice of against the advice of "your all-knowing godlike Army commanders who can do no wrong". Aside from the fact that JFK was counseling NOT going to war if it could be avoided (last resort? Sound familiar?) this time the generals were EXACTLY right. And Bush ignored them. Maybe we need another JFK to ensure we don't make more stupid-ass mistakes like that - I think we do.

He then repeats the "Democrats are peaceniks" and that people like me get "fairly well shouted down by the "peace at all costs" faction." Because, uhh, he says so and he believes it, despite the long list of generals and admirals that are supporting Kerry, including two Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, two Chiefs of Staff (one Army, one Air Force) - and I didn't include former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Shinseki, who was publicly abused and retired for predicting exactly how Iraq has turned out so far. He hasn't publicly endorsed anybody, but you can guess how he feels since he already butted heads with the administration over his views on whether we should invade and what it would take to win.

Cig says if Bush was in the White House he would have "done something stupid like invade Grenada, or Panama." Leaving aside the wisdom of invading Grenada, Bush hasn't launched a limited short-term conflict like that, although he expected one. He invaded Iraq. Did you forget? He would have tried invading Russia if he were president during the Cold War, and we would all be dead. But I guess you Cig thinks that since we didn't invade Russia that the Communists won the cold war. After all, we must have been appeasing them.

He says I am inconsistent because I think we should have (and still should) be chasing Osama even if he is in Pakistan and they don't want us to, but that I "prattled endlessly about how alliances are the most important and sacred asset we have, never to ever be sacrificed for anything whatsoever?"

Well, that is good Republican tactics, but I didn't say that. I said Bush should have built a larger coalition so that we didn't shoulder 90% of the burden, and he still should (he can't - he is incapable. Kerry can). And I said we should go wherever Osama goes, and borders be damned, in order to find and kill him. Instead we get the opposite on both counts - no coalition worthy of the name, but we don't go after Osama because we don't want to offend Pakistan. Confused? Me too. I think that is crazy.

Of course, Cig must insult and make insinuations against the generals that do support Kerry (they want jobs in a Bush administration, or they are anti-Bush out of anger or revenge, etc.) Nice to see that the old "I support our troops - unless they disagree with Bush, then they are traitors" right-wing mentality is alive and well.

Purple-heart band-aid anyone? Yeah, purple hearts are funny, lets make fun of warriors who put their lives on the line because of lies we know are lies that we choose to believe anyway.

And so Cig uses that tactic against 2 chairmen of the joint chiefs, 2 service chiefs, the former head of CENTCOM, and numerous other generals, admirals, and Medal of Honor winners.

I'll bet some of those Medals of Honor weren't even deserved, too.

The other studies he also didn't read also discuss how invading Iraq would help the terrorists and weaken our efforts against them, but I won't repeat myself anymore.

Vote Kerry. Or vote Bush, but for God's sake don't do it because you think the other party is your ENEMY.

"I want to be a uniter, not a divider." - Bush's first flip-flop.

Oh, and the quote by the Marine that will retire rather than serve under Kerry - I didn't realize that the military exists to serve a president. I thought it existed to protect and defend the Constitution, and to serve the People. So the generals who warned Bush against invasion, who warned that we needed more boots on the ground, who warned that we needed a complete plan for the post-war occupation, they should all resign right now instead of continue trying to win? So the soldiers under fire right now who think the invasion was world-class stupid should just quit?

Yeah, that kind of talk is good for morale. I guess there is a new oath: "I will support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, unless the People elect a boss I don't like. Then I am outta here."

It used to be rare to hear such unpatriotic talk like that from this Marine. It is, however, becoming more common every day. And Bush campaigns on military bases. And urges troops to put political bumper stickers on their cars. And attacks the military record of a decorated Vietnam vet.

And you guys question the patriotism of the Democrats?

Wow.

Vote Kerry. Let's get back to being the UNITED States of America, instead of this hateful Red v Blue mistake monger that Bush has turned us into. Let's get back to being America, the example to the rest of the world of how a society should be. Let's return to the ideals of the Revolution. Vote Kerry.

ALa said...

TWD:
I didn't put that there because he isn't going to re-enlist under Kerry --I put it because he said that Kerry insulted the guy you mentioned about the endorsement....?
The military does exist to protect the Constitution, but the comments are endless all over the net anout not living through another set of under-funded 'Clinton years' that you claim didn't exist.

free0352 said...

I can't campaign in uniform. I can tell you I'm a Marine because why lie about what I've been doing for the last seven years. I can tell you all about my personal political stances and party affiliation. Thats me, the island unto myself. I've never clamed to represent the Department of Defense, the Navy, The Marine Corps, my unit, or any other person. I represent me and myself alone. Thats a good thing, the military should have no say in politics or our government what so ever.

But as an individual lone island to myself I beg all registered voters to not subject me to another four years of working for the democrats! I'm begging! Last time was bad enough! Please please please, anything but that! I have to fight a war for you people, this is all I ask?!

As an individual citizen, I can feel free to say whatever I feel. And its as simple as that for me. Clinton was awfull to serve under=Kerry will be just as bad or worse. makes my choice of vote easy for me.

and TWD, as far as your generals go, history is filled with general officers eternally famous for not only the great hights of rank they achived, but for going down in history having achived that rank and then becoming blithering morons soaked in failure. Their modern day counterparts are supporting your candidate. Why not support the candidate the privates love, they're the one's who do the dirty work. The ones winning the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. Just vote republican, just once, this one favor, all I ask. I want to survive my deployment and have some semblance of honor when I get home. Don't bother trying to convince me Kerry woun't screw me over. He's stabed ME in the back before. If he'd had his way, we wouldn't evern have the F-15, the stealth bomber, the patriot missle, do I need to go on here. The man hates me and my kind. The warrior. He called my ilk war criminals. He tried to front like he was a dirty baby killer for the ellection, and a shit load of his war buddies started a web sight and wrote a book, ya get it yet? Most vets besides you hate this twit. I do not want to fight under him. But you'll try and make me anyway. To all those undesided, vote BUSH!

leftyjones said...

This is hard.
It's really hard work.
The work is real and it's hard.
You know, we're doing the work, and the work is hard work.
It's hard work to be President. I've been President for four years and all I can fumble my way through here tonight is to tell you how hard it is.
So people....remember hard work and workin' hard at the work which is work and plenty hard to do hard workity-work.
Thank you!

and I'm supposed to have concerns about pulling the Kerry lever???? Come on now...this your Superbowl season ALa and all you've got are Kerry rips? how about lauding the smash up job that "W" did the other night in sharing with the American people the hard work he's doing?? When you have a free moment I'd sure love to hear your objective review of that debacle. That is, when you aren't busy trying to pretend it never happened.

ALa said...

TWD: Very interesting new poll out today...conducted by the Army times (using over 4,000 active & part time military members). Bush beats Kerry FOUR to ONE among the military. You sweetie, are the MINORITY. If the election was held today 73% vote BUSH and 18% vote Kerry....you are REALLY the minority. 65% of full time and 67% of reserves said John Kerry's Vietnam record and post Vietnam activities would keep them from voting for him.

this we'll defend said...

Interesting poll, Ala71. A constituency that traditionally has voted republican since Eisenhower, votes Republican in the poll. A non-scientific internet poll that consisted of 4,000 emails.

The same Army times polling system in the past has resulted in the following results:

Does the Army need the Crusader automated howitzer?
Yes 77.06 %
No 22.94 %

Should the Crusader artillery system be saved or killed?
Save it 34.82 %
Kill it 52.95 %
I don't know 8.30 %
No opinion 3.93 %

So according to this polling, 77% of soldiers think the Crusader artillery system is needed, but only 35% want us to buy it, and 53% want to get rid of it.

The poll also said that 13% of respondents were Democrats, while 59% were Republican. There is a much higher percentage of democrats in the military, so this poll was akin to a Fox news online survey.

As the publisher admitted when it said "the results are not a scientific poll."

But Bush will win the military vote. As I already said, "the vote in the military community leans toward Bush, because military people tend more toward the conservative." They are also more likely to be from the South and Southwest, which are republican strongholds.

So what? My point is that the Democratic party is not a bunch of peaceniks, does not "loathe the military," and this election is not about the party that loves America versus the one that hates it - however much you try and make it so. This election is not about supporting Bush's misguided wrongheaded decisions one the one hand, and surrendering to france and being a pacifist on the other, however much you say that it is. This is not about American independence versus submitting to the UN. But you desperately want it to be. It isn't, and the public saw that in the debates.

The Bush campaign has been effective in creating the impression that, if elected, Kerry might "cut and run" in Iraq. That is why Kerry won the debate - not style, but substance. People were surprised to see that he was not the hippie caricature the Republicans have been painting him as, and even more surprised to see Bush was just as shocked. And don't even say "well, he flip-flopped for the debate" - Kerry has been consistent on Iraq all along. His position, in fact, has been the same as the senior leadership of the US Army, who have been shown incredibly accurate and competent in their analysis and predictions - but all for naught since this president ignored them completely.

Free claims that Clinton was "awful" to serve under and ALa71 repeats the refrain that the military was underfunded and neglected during those years. It must be true because "the comments are endless all over the net."

So then there is the truth:

"Under growing pressure to ship Marines to Iraq, the Marine Corps is cutting in half the rigorous field combat training it gives units preparing to deploy, senior officers say....

Until now, the Marine Corps trained 10 battalions in CAX every six months. Under the accelerated schedule, it will train eight battalions in two months....

money is short, and so is time.
Staff Sgt. Don Allen, a combat instructor, said his trainees watch demonstrations of the M203 grenade launcher, the Squad Automatic Weapon and the .50-caliber machine gun, but not everyone gets to actually fire the weapons.
"It's financial," said Allen, a combat engineer who fought in Iraq last year with the 8th Marines. "I wish I had the money for them to shoot actual rounds. When I went through this training in 1995, we all shot every weapon."

From the Star Ledger - New Jersey. Text of full article found at http://buggieboy.blogspot.com/2004/08/no-excuse-for-this-none.html

I served under Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton. There was a drawdown under Bush Sr. and Clinton, but this was a bipartisan effort as a result of the end of the Cold War. The military was NOT neglected. I served as a staff officer during the April 1997 Advanced Warfighter Exercise, and no expense was spared in modernizing the military. I guess Bush just pulled the Strykers and the 4th ID and UAVs out of his hat in the 8 months he was president before 9/11. Oh, and trained and equipped the force too. Of course that is ridiculous, but it must be true that the military was a wreck up until Bush was inaguarated - after all, it is "all over the net."

Interestingly, while the military was "neglected" under Clinton, while Free says it was "awful" during those years, the Bush administration has persistently refused to raise the end-strength of the Army and tried to fight the Iraq war on the cheap. As a result we have the call-up of the reserves (meaning we now have NO reserve) and the insurgency was allowed to grow into the full-scale guerilla war we find ourselves in - because Rummy said we didn't need hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq, and didn't plan for post-war conditions. Wolfowitz even said we would need only six months and 80,000 soldiers to win - so who neglected whom?

But truth isn't as fun as sound bites that insult the candidate you don't like.

Free even says we will never know who was right, the Swiftvets or Kerry, about his actions in Vietnam. Well, he will never know. For those who desire to learn the truth, it is out there. The Swiftvets lied.

http://www.factcheck.org/MiscReports.aspx?docid=235

http://www.factcheck.org/MiscReports.aspx?docid=245

http://www.factcheck.org/MiscReports.aspx?docid=243

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=231

But I guess we will never know, because there are rumors "all over the net."

Free says there have been generals in the past that are "blithering morons soaked in failure. Their modern day counterparts are supporting your candidate."

So Free, a military man, claims the following people are blithering morons soaked in failure because they disagree with Bush:

Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff:
Gen. Shalikashvili; Adm. Crowe

Former Army Chief of Staff:
Gen. Eric Shinseki (who was such a moron he predicted EXACTLY where we would be today - see http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-25-iraq-us_x.htm) Shinseki presciently warned before the war that at least 200,000 troops would be needed to occupy Iraq after an invasion. Wolfowitz denounced that estimate as ''wildly off the mark'', while, in a major break with tradition, neither Rumsfeld nor Wolfowitz attended Shinseki's farewell ceremony where he cautioned against ''a 12-division strategy for a 10-division army''. But what did he know?

Former Air Force Chief of Staff:
Gen. McPeak.

Former Central Command commander:
Gen. Zinni

Former Southern Command commander:
Gen. Barry McCaffrey

82nd Airborne Division commander:
Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack: who said that U.S. forces were winning the war in Iraq at the tactical level but, ''strategically, we are (losing it).''

Director of strategic planning for the U.S. occupation in Iraq:
Col. Paul Hughes: ''Unless we have coherency in our policy, we will lose strategically'', he said, adding, ''We don't understand the war we're in''.

Sure are a lot of "blithering morons" in our military. It is a wonder we can ever do anything right. What, the US military is the most competent and effective in the history of the world? How, when it is led by "blithering morons."

We know they are blithering morons if they disagree with Bush - it is "all over the net."

Oh, and here is some more from studies Free won't read:
While the United States easily won the initial battles that toppled Saddam Hussein a year ago, the administration "either misunderstood or, worse, wished away" the difficulties of transforming that victory into the larger political goal, Army Lt. Col. Antulio J. Echevarria of the U.S. Army War College writes.

The critique reflects frustration among some active-duty and retired officers about how Rumsfeld and his top advisers seized control of planning for and execution of the invasion and occupation. Indeed, Echevarria said the reaction to his paper from within the Army "has been pretty positive."

Many officers still are rankled by the treatment of former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, who last spring was sharply criticized in public by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz for suggesting the occupation would require significantly more troops than the initial war. At Rumsfeld's direction, the number was whittled back, with Rumsfeld and other senior officials arguing that "shock and awe" would collapse any opposition and the Iraqi people, as Vice President Dick Cheney said in a March 16, 2003 interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," would greet U.S. troops "as liberators."

Military officers, by tradition and temperament, are reluctant to criticize the civilian leadership, especially in wartime.

"I know of the frustration of dealing with the ideologues in the Pentagon," said retired Army Maj. Gen. William L. Nash, a West Pointer who commanded an armored brigade in Desert Storm and led U.S. troops into Bosnia in 1996.

From http://www.newhouse.com/archive/wood041304.html

Yeah, I'm voting Kerry.

free0352 said...

Listen TWD, I've NEVER SAID the war was run perfectly. The chain of command all the way to the top has made mistakes and engineered huge successes. We had a perfect force to destroy Sadamm's military, not ocupy a country. I don't know what they were thinking when they planed the ocupation.

I also don't know what Esinhouer was thinking with operation market garden, or why wasn't abe lincoln kicked out of office for the first half of the civil war. For that matter why didn't they fire george washington after the summer before valley forge. or chesty puller was thinking when he let ridgway order him into the chosin resevour. Its war, shit happens. The plan never survives first contact. Under Kerry there will be fuck ups too TWD. There are no perfect wars. Why are you armchair quarterbacking this so much. If you fire every damn chain of command with every screw up we'd never keep a general for more than two weeks.

Grown, I'm in class and my liberal professor is going on and on about the war and shit...I've had it, I'm tierd of talking about this now. I'll talk about this later. Why is it that every fucking professor in this place is left of Alvaro? There should be a law that says they should fire this guy because i know damn well if I take part in this discussion and tell this dipshit how it is i'll get a fat F in this class. God forbid I think differantly than this hippie looking nazi.

this we'll defend said...

WARNING: THIS IS TOTALLY OFF TOPIC

Free,

Tell the hippes what they want to hear. The key isn't to become indoctrinated, it is to try and find the logical fallacies in the argument - to learn to think for yourself - not to repeat what you are told. My guess is you are already pretty damn good at it. View everything you are told skeptically, even if you at first agree with it - especially if you first agree with it. You might think you agree or disagree with some of the stuff, but answer "why do I agree with this" or "why do I disagree?" And then ask why AGAIN. If you enjoy that then you might find you love law school as much as I did.

At my law school it was SO much better than undergrad. I would go from one class taught by an extremist right-winger who might be expounding on how great the 1st Amendment is, and then to a class taught by an aging hippie flower-child who might describe why the Supreme Court's holding that Miranda was a Constitutional requirement was totally flawed, and who would question whether we should require cops to even give it. Logic and reason ruled the day. Labels meant nothing.

The key seemed to be to ask "why" several times.

For example:

the hippie prof asks: Why shouldn't we allow cops to coerce confessions?

Because the confessions might be false, several studies have shown that coerced confessions are unreliable. Seems the end of the story - but then the prof asks

"Why does it matter if they are unreliable? In ancient times the "blood debt" could be satisified by killing somebody of the clan who committed a murder - even if the guy you killed wasn't the guilty party. Justice demanded SOMEBODY must pay, but didn't care particularly who. So as long as someone is punished, who cares?"

So we answer "well, it wouldn't prevent the bad guy from killing again."

Oh, and what if you knew for sure the guy would never do it again - should he just be free to go about his business?

"Well, no, we also punish to deter others."

Well, what if (hypothetically) you knew the murderer would not commit another murder, AND that nobody would be deterred by punishing him. Would you still want him punished?

"well, yeah. Hell yeah."

Why? It wouldn't be for deterrance, of the murderer or others. So why punish at all?

There are many answers (and nobody can claim which one is right) but the key isn't getting to the "right" answer, or even to the answer your law prof wants. It is to think through the problem in a way you never have before. It RULES.

One of my answers, by the way, might be that our justice system isn't perfect, but it is better then families engaging in private wars. If your kid was murdered would you accept his murderer walking free? Of course not. You would kill him yourself. Instead in our system we try and punish the criminal - to deter others, to deter the criminal himself, AND to deter people taking justice into their own hands. The desire for revenge is real (and sometimes even a good thing) and must be satisfied or the system fails. People would not trust the system, and they would go after bad guys themselves. That seems ok to some, but immediatly after the fall of Saddam Iraq was a great example of that kind of system where there is no external justice system. So was Somalia.

And there are 500 other great answers too. The only wrong one is to not have one at all.

And then we get back to "Well, what if there was a way to torture and if someone confessed you could know it was reliable, and if they didn't you would know they were innocent. Is torture ok then?"

And more great digging, digging, digging. Nothing was taken for granted, and ANY position you take on ANYTHING had to be justified. And for the slackers - having NO POSITION had to be justified too.

The Socratic method was scary - and exciting and wonderful. Bad instructors make people hate the socratic method. I had great ones that made me want no other method of instruction.

But perhaps I'm just jazzed because I picked up my diploma today. That sucker is BIG. :)

Good luck on your LSAT! Let me know if you want the lowdown on admissions to top 20 schools.

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

TWD, "Well, Cig, I expected better from you."

LOL, that I would just see you drop a few Generals' names and suddenly "see the light" and come to the Democrat fold? I see a little too much of the rest of the Democrat fold to want to go anywhere near it.

Yes, yes, Kerry voted to give Bush authority to act but didn't really want him to USE it. I've heard it a million times. It remains insipid every time I hear it.

"although the inspectors did return"

Not for the no-notice inspections that we demanded though. Just more of the same cat and mouse games as before. And you would expect what, more of the same appeasement that none dare call appeasement, these days?

"and it turns out Iraq WAS complying"

Uhm, no it wasn't. On 2/14/2003, Hans Blix indicated that slight progress had been made in Iraq's cooperation. SLIGHT progress TOWARD complying is not COMPLYING.

And what are "serious consequences" to you, a slap on the wrist?

"CIA officer who says the administration forced down the throats of the CIA what they wanted to hear"

Oh please. So the Russian Federation's intelligence agencies and Britain's MI-5 also got their reports "shoved down their throats"? For someone with, as you allege, no ability to influence anyone else in the world diplomatically, it's a flip-flop to ascribe to Bush this overarching power to internationally shove an agenda down independant throats. So you've got one yahoo who got passed over for a promotion. Where do you think Clinton's info-scandal troubles boiled up from, Hillary?

"What the fuck was she [Condoleeza Rice] reading then?"

What the fuck was KERRY reading, when he was in "voting for it" mode? He's in the same boat as Bush and Rice and everyone else here, eager as he is to leap out of it now.

"He gives him the authority - only after a speech in which he warns that he is NOT supporting unilateral US action"

Is there no end to left-wing perfidy?

Sept. 12, 2002: President Bush addresses the UN, challenging the organization to swiftly enforce its own resolutions against Iraq. If not, Bush contends, the U.S. will have no choice but to act on its own against Iraq.

Oct. 11, 2003: Congress authorizes an attack on Iraq.

Kerry knew over a MONTH going into the vote that Bush was saying we might have to go it alone if no one else in the world had the balls to put an end to Saddam's games and baiting.

"Under Saddam’s regime, a pervasive and effective internal security apparatus"

So that's what you call rape, torture, and murder these days. I see. So this screed on the effectiveness of tyranny and the implied weakness of Democratic institutions are supposed to be an impressive study on how to manage a transitional policy?

"Foreign fighters are currently entering Iraq from Syria and Iran, countries that have been historic rivals."

That's just historically illiterate. Syria was divided from Iraq artificially by Great Britain after the defeat of the Ottoman Turks in World War I. Iran is an historic rival, but only with the Sunni portion of Iraq. The Shi'ah majority there don't consider Iran quite in that light.

Yes, infiltration has been a problem, and there have obviously been some tactical blunders on the part of some commanders in the field. But to demand a President's replacement over it is like saying FDR needed to be impeached after the Kasserine Pass.

You and I both know what technology exists to prevent infiltration. It's used in Nevada to keep lookie-lous away from a secret test flight base in a way that irrationally gives rise to UFO conspiracy theories, and there's no good reason it can't be used in Iraq. Much as you may think I'm incapable of criticizing Rummy, I hand this criticism to him, that there haven't been more death traps set up for the infiltrators in the border regions.

"Aside from the fact that JFK was counseling NOT going to war"

Doesn't matter. If Army Generals are all right, all the time, JFK would have authorized the invasion of Cuba that THEY pushed for.

"despite the long list of generals and admirals that are supporting Kerry"

...which do not in any wise outnumber the forces arrayed by Dean, Jesse Jackson, Nancy Pelosi, and other anti-war cretins that make up the majority of the Party. The Generals are there as star-studded window dressing, nothing more. They are the wood planks of the trojan horse this election season.

I find it unfortunate a General would sacrifice national security for his own careerism and personal agenda, but so it often goes.

"He would have tried invading Russia if he were president during the Cold War"

You compare Baathist Iraq's now-defunct military to the cold-war-era Soviet Union, and expect to be taken seriously on national security issues. *smirk*

Why don't you just polish some boots and do push-ups or something?

"(should) be chasing Osama even if he is in Pakistan and they don't want us to"

Straw Pakistan, perhaps, in your fallacious fantasy world.

"I said Bush should have built a larger coalition so that we didn't shoulder 90% of the burden"

It actually boosted from a mere 69% in 1991 to a whopping 85% in 2003. Huge leap there. Even your own hate mags acknowledge these numbers.

"no coalition worthy of the name"

Due to the absence of France and Germany? How omnipotent do you perceive those two nations to be, actually?

"but we don't go after Osama because we don't want to offend Pakistan"

No, because Pakistan IS going after Osama. If Osama were hiding out as an outlaw within your Almighty France, would you elbow the Sureté out of the way and say we have to handle it on their soil and not them? We DO have the proper resources there advising, from the proper alphabet-soup agencies. But conventional force in the matter needs to be mostly a Pakistani deal right now.

"Purple-heart band-aid anyone?"

How many days of duty out of his FOUR MONTH tour did young Lieutenant JG Kerry miss due to medical treatment of the injuries sustained by arm scratches or rice up his ass? If "war hero" is the best qualification you can use for Kerry, who slandered the REAL war heroes in that conflict, then you're even nuttier than I thought.

"Vote Kerry. Or vote Bush, but for God's sake don't do it because you think the other party is your ENEMY."

I'm not going to deny the Democrats are in bed with the enemy, when they ARE. Many, like you, don't understand how that works, because it's not obvious nor announced on NBC news, so I don't expect you to share my view or even to think it's sane at the moment. But the Soviet network that sucker-punched our national psyop in Vietnam, did NOT fall away with the Soviet Union, and persists as a living breathing apparatus of destruction here in America. They were leaderless for a time when the Soviet Union fell, but now they've begun to cling to European powers as the Socialist solution to all the world's ills. That mitigates the destructive potential of that column of agitators when the European powers are more closely aligned to American power, but when your buddies France and Germany get a wild, hair, there's no telling the havoc they begin to wreak.

"we needed a complete plan for the post-war occupation"

Which FDR didn't have while invading Germany. Where is your outrage against FDR?

"I will support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, unless the People elect a boss I don't like. Then I am outta here."

It worked for General Shinseki, didn't it?

"And you guys question the patriotism of the Democrats?"

Most of them, yes. The Democrats out on the street in the MILLIONS, outnumbering your tiny array of tin soldiers by, oh, MILLIONS to one... sure.

"Wow."

Yeah, wow. The vast majority of your party disagrees with you, and yet you give them your vote. Stunning lapse of lucidity there.

"Vote Kerry. Let's get back to being the UNITED States of America"

Bullshit. He'll unite me when he can peel logic from my cold dead brain cells, as he vents his fallacy and hatred and Socialist doctrine.

"Let's return to the ideals of the Revolution. Vote Kerry."

The one Lenin fought?

Lefty Jones,
"and I'm supposed to have concerns about pulling the Kerry lever????"

Not from your world-view, no. Kerry really does represent you. It's the ones who still think they're patriotic, like TWD, who really need to reassess what they're doing here. He claims to want victory, but voices like your own demanding our defeat will drown his out under a Kerry presidency.

So you, you do what you gotta do. We all know you're a snake, and know better than to pick you up, as the proverb goes. It's the ones in non-snake clothing that are more of a concern.

"When you have a free moment I'd sure love to hear your objective review of that debacle."

Kerry spoke to you because he spoke with forked tongue. He contradicted himself more than the Bible, and that's an accomplishment.

Back to TWD,
"My point is that the Democratic party is not a bunch of peaceniks"

The Lefty Jones type outnumbers the TWD type by a huge majority. You will be voiceless in a Kerry presidency, and the Reverend Jesse Jackson will monopolize Kerry's time, figuring out new and better ways to screw small business and redistribute wealth to special interests. He's not going to give a flying sex act about "victory" once he's used your vote to get what he wants. You're too deeply in an unsound minority for it to be WISE for him to care.

"does not 'loathe the military,'"

Repudiate Clinton influence if you think you dare, but it's still strong.

"and this election is not about the party that loves America versus the one that hates it"

Michael Moore seated on the right hand of Jimmy Carter. And you expect me to call my own eyes "liars".

"This is not about American independence versus submitting to the UN."

Which side of the flip-flop are you on today, the one that says a "global test" IS necessary, or the one that says it ISN'T?

"The Bush campaign has been effective in creating the impression that, if elected, Kerry might "cut and run" in Iraq."

To mitigate giving excessive credit to the Bush campaign, logic itself does a good amount of that on its own. It would be thoroughly in Kerry's interest to cut and run, because he could handily just blame Bush for making it unwinnable and he's got an easy out. That's probably the "secret strategy" he's been alluding to all this time.

I know one thing for sure. He DAMN well will NOT get any help from France and Germany. They are consistent and emphatic in making a liar out of Kerry every time he claims they will send troops on his request.

So ***LOGICALLY***, Kerry's options are to leave in defeat, or do what Bush is currently doing: just continuing to fight the good fight. And I don't think the majority of his constituency will allow the latter. They demand defeat at all costs, and they expect Kerry to give it to them.

"Kerry has been consistent on Iraq all along."

Consistently inconsistent, that is. For it; against it; $87 Billion; no $87 Billion; Saddam was a threat; Saddam was not a threat; Global Test required; no Global Test required; in; out; victory; defeat; yes; no; maybe so??? It's quantum policy; Schroedinger's Cat; a Zen Koan. Fun for word games and song lyrics, but disastrous for the formulation of policy that has to work in the real world.

"The military [under Clinton] was NOT neglected."

But it was loathed, LOL. Seriously though, the unfunded mandates of units were what got to be a bit much. Go build schools and hospitals in Bangladesh, but I'm not going to fund you for it. Find cuts in your own budgets to make it happen. Wash, rinse, repeat. That was untenable after a while. SOME cuts WERE needed, but not to the level pushed down by Clinton. As a Manpower Analyst I was one of the messengers the units wanted to shoot, passing the word on down that they weren't getting funded for their authorized positions. It thickens your skin quite a bit when you have bird Colonels two inches from your face asking "WHAT THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO DO HERE?" My knee-jerk refrain was, "Sir, this comes down from MAJCOM." (Which in turn comes down from HAF, which in turn comes down from DoD, which in turn comes down from the POTUS.) Shizzle rolls down the hizzle, to modernize an old saying. Perhaps the saddest part of all that was to see the O-6es turn to the O-7 Base Commander, who in turn has no choice but to shrug.

"Of course that is ridiculous, but it must be true that the military was a wreck up until Bush was inaguarated"

'WRECK' is a very strong term, and probably not appropriate. I would say, in a painful position. They had to make very tough choices at the senior command levels, and apparently the Strykers and other cites you give were the ones they protected. I can tell you what they didn't protect, in the Air Force side of the house.

"because Rummy said we didn't need hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq"

His side of the story is that if General Franks needed more troops, he only had to ask. And apparently he did ask, and he received (pulling from such "hot spots" as Germany). Last I checked, uhm, that's how it works.

What current cites do you have for commanders OUT IN THE FIELD asking for more troops, and then being refused those troops by DoD?

"But truth isn't as fun as sound bites that insult the candidate you don't like."

Which is why you opt for the latter, apparently.

"What, the US military is the most competent and effective in the history of the world?"

Edging past China and the Russian Federation by a nose in each case, I'd say, in overall conventional capability; and in fierceness it's North Korea way ahead of the #2 contenders here.

But then, in unconventional warfare we're in a shaky tie right now with al Qaeda.

"and the Iraqi people, as Vice President Dick Cheney said in a March 16, 2003 interview on NBC's Meet the Press, would greet U.S. troops 'as liberators.'"

The majority there actually do. It's not safe for them to speak out in that way though. Not yet. One terrorist can keep a million civilians quiet with the right threat campaigns. But he can't quite so easily change their MINDS. This is why the citizens shove gifts into CBFTW's cargo pockets, quietly thank him, and then run off in front of the cameras saying "Yankee go home!" Life insurance. But right about now, Musab al Zarqawi's the one who needs life insurance the most.

Free,
"For that matter why didn't they fire george washington after the summer before valley forge."

Congress had no clue what else to do. When Washington handed them Trenton in the spring, that kind of reinstilled their confidence in him and voila, the funding started to flow again, too. Funny how that happens.

"Why is it that every fucking professor in this place is left of Alvaro?"

Because they're part of the network built here by the Soviets to destroy us. Now they're all loose cannons, but becoming a bit tighter as time goes on, under string-pulling by Soros and others.

this we'll defend said...

Cigman's claims are these:

1. Kerry flip-flopped on Iraq, supporting the President at first but later changing his mind.
(see http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/23/MNGQK8TI8O1.DTL)

2. Iraq was not complying with our demands about WMD production. Which explains all those WMDs we found.

3. The intelligence sources on Iraq all agreed and Bush was right to rely on them. (see all the commentary about Richard Clarke, I won't rehash it. or you can check out the essays I wrote at http://buggieboy.blogspot.com/2004/08/national-security-is-w-helping-or.html AND http://buggieboy.blogspot.com/2004/07/hapless-soldiers-sigh.html)

4. Bush, Kerry, and Ms. Rice all had access to the same information. (see http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6397901)

5. Saddam was a BAD MAN. yes. I agree.

6. The military has made some tactical blunders, but that can't be blamed on Bush. Ignoring the whole Gen. Shinseki episode, or the Army War College predictions, just read this: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040901faessay83505/larry-diamond/what-went-wrong-in-iraq.html?mode=print

A short excerpt from the article above: From the beginning, military experts warned Washington that the task would require, as Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki told Congress in February 2003, "hundreds of thousands" of troops. For the United States to deploy forces in Iraq at the same ratio to population as NATO had in Bosnia would have required half a million troops. Yet the coalition force level never reached even a third of that figure. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his senior civilian deputies rejected every call for a much larger commitment and made it very clear, despite their disingenuous promises to give the military "everything" it asked for, that such requests would not be welcome. No officer missed the lesson of General Shinseki, whom the Pentagon rewarded for his public candor by announcing his replacement a year early, making him a lame-duck leader long before his term expired. Officers and soldiers in Iraq were forced to keep their complaints about insufficient manpower and equipment private, even as top political officials in the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) insisted publicly that greater military action was necessary to secure the country.

7. The many military men supporting Kerry, including two chairmen of the joint chiefs, two service chiefs of staff (not including Gen. Shinseki), and a former Central Command commander, are all doing it because they "would sacrifice national security for [their] own careerism and personal agenda, but so it often goes." I won't even comment on that.

8. We have a coalition similar to the one we had in the first gulf war. There are about 17,000 coalition combat troops (out of around 25,000 total). FRANCE alone provided 17,000 combat troops. Syria provided 19,000. Britain provided 30,000. The list continues (large contingents from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc) and the total cost of the war amounted to around $80 billion, of which we paid $8 billion, with allies picking up the rest. But, we do have Tonga on our side (44 troops).

9. We should let Pakistan go after Osama since they are looking hard for him. We don't need to help. Well, I disagree, but that is just me. I remember 9/11 and all, you know. I want him dead. Yesterday.

10. Kerry was a wuss because he only served 4 months in Vietnam. I've been over that too many times too.

11. There is a vast commie conspiracy trying to defeat the United States. The Democrats are part of it. (well, if that is true I really can't comment, right?)

12. FDR made the same kinds of mistakes Bush is making. He didn't even have a plan for post-war Germany. (interesting history. Wrong, but interesting).

13. General Shinseki quit because he didn't like Bush. (see excerpt above).

14. The democratic party is really controlled by Howard Dean and Jesse Jackson, and Kerry will listen to the flower-children if elected. (yes, which explains how Kerry is the candidate, not Dean or Jackson. Which explains the party platform. And which doesn't explain how that make Bush's policies any more correct or workable than before - but which does put a political opponent on the defensive and takes the heat off of Bush and his disastrous decisions).

15. Kerry is a socialist/communist. (Why not accuse him of belonging to NAMBLA too?)

16. Not voting for Bush is "demanding defeat" in Iraq, the war on terror, and of the United States. (sure, buddy. that's our plan)

17. The democrats "loathe the military" (see excerpt above)

18. Democrats hate America, which is proven by Michael Moore sitting next to Jimmy Carter. (I guess any dissenting voices hate America. And Michael Moore isn't running, Kerry is. Dean is also not running, or Jesse Jackson. And Bush is running, not David Duke, or Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell. So these kind of charges are smoke and mirrors to distract from the questions about Bush.)

19. Kerry will "cut and run" in Iraq. (Repeat a lie enough times and it becomes conventional wisdom)

20. If Kerry wins he has only two options in Iraq: defeat or continue what Bush is doing. (Just as the choice in Iraq was appeasement or invasion? Why can't Republicans count past two? There are LOTS of options, and yes the situation is BAD but Bush doesn't even see that - so in order to win we can not continue to do what Bush is doing. I want us to win, and Bush is losing the war for us)

21. The military was neglected under Clinton. (I have addressed this before, but it is a constant refrain from the right. Given that the military that invaded Iraq did NOT have equipment given to them in just the past two years, did NOT increase their staffing levels or training rotations prior to 9/11 (or, actually, prior to the invasion itself), and given that the end-strength of the Army is the same as on the day Bush was inaguarated, this "neglected" military under Clinton was the one that invaded at Bush's command. What will it look like four years from now, regardless of who is elected? The vehicles are now worn out, the soldiers are worn out, enlistments are dropping, re-enlistments are dropping, standards are being lowered, and training is suffering. Thanks for not neglecting the military, George.)

22. The Army never wanted more troops in Iraq (jeez. See the excerpt above, or google it, or read the Army War College publications, or read Shinseki's testimony before the Senate, or his retirement speech, or damn READ)

23. The Iraqi people ARE greeting us as liberators, it just isn't "safe" for them to do so openly yet. (uhh, damn. Why isn't is "safe" exactly? But the point was not that many Iraqis would like us there, or even 90%. The point was that many people said we would need more troops to occupy Iraq because at least SOME wouldn't like us (uhh, the guys shooting at us perhaps?), and the administration said no, the Iraqis would be docile and happy to see us so we didn't need many soldiers at all, and they would all be home soon. Can you see how it turned out?)

24. The mistakes Bush made are the kinds of mistakes always made in wars. Nobody is perfect, and we should stick with Bush just like we stuck by FDR. (see excerpt above - and FDR didn't invade Mexico as far as I can recall. The war FDR led us through was just and right and necessary and unavoidable. The war against terror is just and right and necessary and unavoidable. The invasion of Iraq was wrong, unnecessary, and stupid. Now that we have invaded pulling out in defeat would be wrong and stupid as well, but I don't think the guy that made one of the worst decisions of any president in history is the guy to trust to gain victory now.)

25. Liberal hippie professors are all part of a plot built by the Soviet Union to destroy us. (good lord)

Anyway, I'm done with this topic. We can agree to disagree - at least until my evil democrat party succeeds it its conspiracy to destroy America, and communism triumphs, I guess.

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

That's a whole lotta spin, good golly. But at this point it's apparent that due to the length of what we're both writing, nobody's reading any of what EITHER of us put down here, so I'm done with it too. The time savings on my part is welcome.

I will just unleash this one point that I can't for the life of me stifle: I do know that it's a lie to say that officers in the field are too cowardly to ask higher headquarters for more manpower when they need it. Been there. Done that. Got the asbestos earplugs from it. It can be no less than bullshit to claim that has changed to that degree, in military culture, just in the transition of Clinton to Bush. No way in hell. And I think you're fucking lying. No other way to put it.

Frater Bovious said...

I tried to read it all, really I did.

TWD, I have to say I was impressed with the initial bee and wasp analogy. You made some valid points.

KAT, your hornet post was brilliant.

Cig, Always like your comments.

I think this topic probably holds some sort of record for words written...

On the whole, Britain and USA gave this post a 10. Italy gave it a 9. N. Korea, 3, S. Korea 9. France abstained. Germany gave a 5. Kerry gave it a 10, no 1. fb

this we'll defend said...

Lying about what? About more troops? Who said they DIDN'T ask - my point is THEY DID ASK. And they were told to shut up, and they saw what happened to Shinseki and realized they weren't going to be listened to anway.

From www.intel-dump.com:

Tuesday's Washington Post carries what may be the ultimate October surprise of the 2004 election — the statement by former-U.S. proconsul Paul Bremer that he lacked the troops and resources he needed to foster a secure and stabile environment in Iraq immediately after the fall of the Hussein regime.

From http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0306.carter.html: During the lead-up to the Iraq war, hawkish Pentagon appointees like Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz predicted that the conflict could be won with as few as 50,000 troops. Meanwhile, senior generals like Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki and CENTCOM Commander Tommy Franks said that it would take at least 200,000 for the offensive and far more to police and rebuild the country after victory....April and May [2003] brought daily news reports from Baghdad quoting U.S. military officers saying they lacked the manpower to do their jobs...."It's frustrating; we do not have the personnel or the training to be policemen," Army civil affairs Maj. Jack Nales told The Washington Post in Baghdad. In one encounter, Nales had to explain the lack of order to civilians. "I'm sorry the police agencies and judicial system isn't [sic] here. I'm sorry we don't have enough soldiers to help you."

From "Blind into Baghdad" by James Fallows:

Three Weeks Before the War
As the war drew near, the dispute about how to conduct it became public. On February 25 the Senate Armed Services Committee summoned all four Chiefs of Staff to answer questions about the war—and its aftermath. The crucial exchange began with a question from the ranking Democrat, Carl Levin. He asked Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, how many soldiers would be required not to defeat Iraq but to occupy it. Well aware that he was at odds with his civilian superiors at the Pentagon, Shinseki at first deflected the question. "In specific numbers," he said, "I would have to rely on combatant commanders' exact requirements. But I think ..." and he trailed off.

"How about a range?" Levin asked. Shinseki replied—and recapitulated the argument he had made to Rumsfeld. I would say that what's been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required.

We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so, it takes significant ground force presence to maintain safe and secure environment to ensure that the people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this. Two days later Paul Wolfowitz appeared before the House Budget Committee. He began working through his prepared statement about the Pentagon's budget request and then asked permission to "digress for a moment" and respond to recent commentary, "some of it quite outlandish, about what our postwar requirements might be in Iraq." Everyone knew he meant Shinseki's remarks.

"I am reluctant to try to predict anything about what the cost of a possible conflict in Iraq would be," Wolfowitz said, "or what the possible cost of reconstructing and stabilizing that country afterwards might be." This was more than reluctance—it was the Administration's consistent policy before the war. "But some of the higher-end predictions that we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark."

This was as direct a rebuke of a military leader by his civilian superior as the United States had seen in fifty years. Wolfowitz offered a variety of incidental reasons why his views were so different from those he alluded to: "I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq's reconstruction," and "We can't be sure that the Iraqi people will welcome us as liberators ... [but] I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down." His fundamental point was this: "It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to imagine."

None of the government working groups that had seriously looked into the question had simply "imagined" that occupying Iraq would be more difficult than defeating it. They had presented years' worth of experience suggesting that this would be the central reality of the undertaking. Wolfowitz either didn't notice this evidence or chose to disbelieve it. What David Halberstam said of Robert McNamara in The Best and the Brightest is true of those at OSD as well: they were brilliant, and they were fools.

Yeah, I'm fucking lying.

Archie Levine said...

Hey, pretty blonde girl who is sagely, I went to the website that your VP candidate tried to promote as a source of truth in fact checking (factcheck.org instead of factcheck.com, which is funny in itself, but too cheap a shot to go after) and guess what.

That site calls the ad you are promoting misleading.

Do what Cheney says and go there yourself and check the facts:

Bush Ad Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq:
Selective use of Kerry's own words makes him look inconsistent on Iraq. A closer look gives a different picture.

September 27, 2004
Modified: September 28, 2004
Summary:
Kerry has never wavered from his support for giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq, nor has he changed his position that he, as President, would not have gone to war without greater international support. But a Bush ad released Sept. 27 takes many of Kerry's words out of context to make him appear to be alternately praising the war and condemning it.

Archie Levine said...

Hey, pretty blonde girl who is sagely, I went to the website that your VP candidate tried to promote as a source of truth in fact checking (factcheck.org instead of factcheck.com, which is funny in itself, but too cheap a shot to go after) and guess what?

That site calls the ad you are promoting misleading.

Do what Cheney says and go there yourself and check the facts:

Bush Ad Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq:
Selective use of Kerry's own words makes him look inconsistent on Iraq. A closer look gives a different picture.

September 27, 2004
Modified: September 28, 2004
Summary:
Kerry has never wavered from his support for giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq, nor has he changed his position that he, as President, would not have gone to war without greater international support. But a Bush ad released Sept. 27 takes many of Kerry's words out of context to make him appear to be alternately praising the war and condemning it.

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

TWD, seeing as you're not done, as you previously claimed, then I'll hop back into it too.

Shinseki is one thing, but if Tommy Franks quoted a higher manpower requirement figure, then that's enough for me to take it as Gospel. Whatever Franks meant by "more" than 200K, that's what the requirement should be. The reason I tend to believe Franks more than Shinseki is that Afghanistan bears more cultural similarity to Iraq than does Kosovo, and while terrain is different, which may skew Franks' numbers, they would probably be less skewed than those of Shinseki.

So. In a Franks/Wolfowitz conflict of mathematics, I will concede that Franks wins out, and Wolfowitz then becomes the problem cog in the machine. The "Kasserine Pass" analogy of manpower for the Iraq operation is then quite firmly bolted down on Wolfowitz' doorstep, and I now fully support the summary firing of Wolfowitz, and because Rummy's on thin ice already from Abu Ghraib, if he so much as says a kind word about Wolfowitz, fire Rummy too. That's where the problem IS, and that's where I think it should be FIXED.

And this mass alienation of Generals and War College mandarins, is also apparently a Wolfowitz problem. There should be no reason why a Bush presidency CAN'T fire Wolfowitz, though, and keep on with a mission that at least BUSH believes in (and obviously Kerry does not).

You see, when there is a problem, fix the problem at the level where it erupts and persists. We didn't fire FDR for the Kasserine Pass, nor should we fire Bush for a manpower shortage (certified by Tommy Franks) in Iraq. Just make the adjustment where it is needed.

Archie Levine,
"factcheck.org instead of factcheck.com, which is funny in itself, but too cheap a shot to go after)"

But you did anyway. Nice.

"Kerry has never wavered from his support for giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq, nor has he changed his position that he, as President, would not have gone to war without greater international support. But a Bush ad released Sept. 27 takes many of Kerry's words out of context to make him appear to be alternately praising the war and condemning it."

He DID both praise the war and condemn it. I'm not aware of the specific structure of the ad that factcheck.org is commenting on, but in the larger campaign there is easy pickings of Kerry quotes that the war is a "mistake", a "lie", a "grand diversion", and so forth. He did vote for the $87 billion before he voted against it. He did then turn around in the debate and say that troops in Iraq are NOT dying for "a mistake". If the Bush campaign cannot effectively present the case that Kerry is self-contradictory, fallacious, and completely divorced from logic, that's doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't.

Anonymous said...

On life¡¯s earnest battle they only prevail, who daily march onward and never say fail.

7zSmu http://www.cheapuggbootsan.com/
vSuq http://www.michaelkorsoutletez.com/
eGzr http://www.cheapfashionshoesam.com/
9zDby http://www.burberryoutletxi.com/
1iTis http://www.nflnikejerseysshopxs.com/
7qLck http://www.coachfactoryoutlesa.com/
7kGkn 5dFgb 1wVak 8lQda 7oAzt 7uPxs 6gJes 9sThv 0xWds

Anonymous said...

There is but one step from the sublime to the ridiculous.

6tHyj http://www.cheapuggbootsan.com/
mBpd http://www.michaelkorsoutletez.com/
zZpq http://www.cheapfashionshoesam.com/
7qBwk http://www.burberryoutletxi.com/
2jVgb http://www.nflnikejerseysshopxs.com/
8xMdj http://www.coachfactoryoutlesa.com/
3cYmg 6iHkq 8lAgz 7yXqf 7tIbn 1eSnw 2dCzx 1yZjh 9dQbi

Anonymous said...

There is no disputing about tastes.

4kIym http://www.cheapuggbootsan.com/
aGnp http://www.michaelkorsoutletez.com/
jAeq http://www.cheapfashionshoesam.com/
9tDas http://www.burberryoutletxi.com/
8qMjn http://www.nflnikejerseysshopxs.com/
9wNlq http://www.coachfactoryoutlesa.com/
5rOla 5qWcl 9hQru 7uWfw 7vMuu 1bHkz 7bZzd 9wQgm 1rFbo

Anonymous said...

Knowledge is power.

9gAwf http://www.cheapuggbootsan.com/
oVrp http://www.michaelkorsoutletez.com/
gUsa http://www.cheapfashionshoesam.com/
4hVmr http://www.burberryoutletxi.com/
7eZrv http://www.nflnikejerseysshopxs.com/
3hLqy http://www.coachfactoryoutlesa.com/
1rKvv 9pDoo 6cVpn 8yQsu 4hKnu 7lDxg 6sErn 9uJpm 2cWbz