August 31, 2004
MY KIND OF MAN
I hear Rudy Giuliani was a hit. I can't watch the RNC here, so I have to read it, and
I like what I read. And you know what else I like? I like having a president who's
uncomfortable with the Queen of England and completely at home with a crew of construction workers. But maybe that's just me.
MORE TO GROK:
Thanks, NightHawk. It was even better to watch than to read.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:49 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Character. I would guess that even William F. Buckley would feel the same as Bush. Not Kennedy. Not Kerry. Not Hillary, although Bill might.
Posted by: Mike at August 31, 2004 07:48 AM (MqNKC)
2
Take a look at C-Span (http://www.c-span.org). They have the video of Rudy's speech.
Posted by: NightHawk at August 31, 2004 10:19 AM (jy9sQ)
3
Rudy Giuliani said in a past presidential race that he would find it hard to back any candidate who favored repealing the federal assault weapons ban:
Someone who now voted to roll back the assault-weapons ban would really be demonstrating that special interest politics mean more to them than life-or-death issues.
Hmmm...And Bush supported the extention of the ban back in 2000, but now he is going to let it expire on Sept 13th. Sounds like some people are flip-flopping.
Not to mention the fact that you have no idea who Giuliani really is. As long as he pays lip service to your Bush, you don't care about anything else.
P.S. I didn't see anything about Bush's latest...reversal...
"Can we win the war on terror? I don't think you can win it."
Posted by: rfidtag at August 31, 2004 10:56 AM (XxIKf)
4
"Can we win the war on terror? I don't think you can win it."
I'm of the opinion he means it in the same way that we haven't defeated Nazism, or Stalinism. They're still there, but they're in a situation like the one Bush describes in the rest of the quote.
Kalroy
Posted by: kalroy at August 31, 2004 12:52 PM (q1aeu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 30, 2004
THERE'S A WAR ON
Steyn says the same thing that I told my friend when
we discussed stem cell research:
But [Bush at the RNC] will talk up successes in the war and remind us that, if we don't win it, the best prescription-drugs plan in the world isn't going to make much difference.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:12 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The problem with that kind of argument is this: Many people figure that the probability of a prescription drugs them affecting them is much higher than the probability of anyone they know getting hurt or killed in the next 9/11. So they don't care if the US loses the war in the long run because they want their drugs in the short run. Domestic socialism has much more appeal than vague, abstract violence abroad. "Gimme government goodies" is the mentality of too many Americans.
Posted by: Amritas at August 30, 2004 10:05 AM (McZj1)
2
"a prescription drugs them" should read "a prescription drugs plan."
Another problem is that many people (and I am not talking about Leftist fanatics) probably don't see what the point of winning is. So what if the US wins against al-Whoever in Ira-q-or-n? What's that got to do with ME?
Hawks sense an existential threat looming toward the US. Doves don't. They don't perceive Islamists as being the equals of the Third Reich or the Japanese Empire. I would say that the Islamists are weaker - and in some ways worse.
If Islamist air forces and navies were blasting apart the East Coast, you can bet that all but the most devoted pacifists would become hawks overnight.
Until then (that is, almost certainly never), people will think: a Nick Berg here, somebody else there, what's the big deal? Three thousand deaths weren't enough for them.
Posted by: Amritas at August 30, 2004 10:21 AM (McZj1)
3
I think you're right, Amritas...the threat is too intangible for many people. And here's what's funny: many people on the left talk continuously about how "intelligent" they are. But what *is* intelligence, if not the ability to perceive and act on things that can be perceived only indirectly, and to identify trends before they hit you in the face?
Posted by: David Foster at August 30, 2004 11:30 AM (XUtCY)
4
David,
By that definition of "intelligence," extreme Leftists would still think they are smart since they are "catching on" to the Nazification of America that eludes me for some reason. While they see the Fourth Reich coming (if it isn't already here), I just utter "duhhhh" as I vote for Bush.
Posted by: Amritas at August 30, 2004 01:29 PM (McZj1)
5
Time to reread the Constitution. The Federal Government's main job is to protect the people. Let Merck and Pfizer take care of stem cell research.
Posted by: Tanker Schreiber at August 30, 2004 02:13 PM (qFLTD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 27, 2004
GRADES
Long-time readers will know that nothing gets my blood boiling like some snotty intellectual calling average Americans stupid. They frequently do it to our servicemembers, which really ticks me off. And they do it all the time to our President. Nothing makes me madder than the audacity of a
statement like this:
Does anyone in America doubt that Kerry has a higher IQ than Bush? I'm sure their SATs and college transcripts would put Kerry far ahead.
OK, well we all know President Bush's grades, since "Bush is dumb" is like sooo 2000. What are Kerry's grades, then? Can't Howell Raines find them and make a factual statement instead of resorting to bandwagon techniques?
I don't know what happens behind closed White House doors. I don't really care who's pulling most of the weight, be it Bush or Cheney or Rice. As a team, they're getting the job done. But, having absolutely no facts at my disposal, I'm not sure I want to poke at President Bush's IQ. What does IQ measure? Little picture games and mind puzzles and making connections and so on. I think President Bush might do quite well on a test of this nature.
Smarts isn't about memorizing and regurgitating, which is what the SAT and grades are about. Hell, I'm freaking awesome at that. I can play the school game like nobody's business, which is how you end up valedictorian and summa cum laude. But I'm slowly learning that playing school and playing life are completely different things.
Last night I had my second stats class. We learned variance and standard deviation, long formulas involving sigmas and x-bars and things that give most math-fearing people (the majority of the class) the heebie-jeebies. But I got the formulas right away. I figured out how to do the functions on the calculator right away. But then when I raised my hand and asked for how it applies to the real world, I could hear the panic in people's gasps. It's bad enough we have to plug in the frequency and take square roots, for chrissake, who cares what it all means! But I cared. I'm not taking stats just to finish a degree; I'm taking it because I want to know how it applies to the real world. And I could easily see how to plug in all the data, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out the relationship between the answer we got (18.2 cents) and the real problem (increase cigarette taxes in 27 states).
It's very humbling to realize you can't figure it out unless the teacher shows you how.
I've realized that I've an overabundance of capability, but no real ability to decipher relationships on my own. Give me formulas, give me numbers, and I'll give you all the answers, but ask me what it means and I'll stutter. And I get A's and had a relatively high SAT score. (I'm getting better at it through blogging, but I'm still stunned by the likes of Den Beste, Bunker, and CavX. I'll never get to that level.)
President Bush, and whoever else is working behind closed doors with him, can see the big picture. I don't care if he can plug the numbers into the calculator himself or if Cheney does it for him, as long as he continues to get 'er done. What indication do we have that Kerry sees the big picture? He obviously can't even make the mental relationship that voting for war and against funding makes you look like a jackass.
Look, I just don't like to call anyone stupid. I especially don't like it when Howell Raines -- who presumably thought Jayson Blair was pretty smart -- points his finger at the President. There's much more to smarts than grades in college; I'd say, to quote CavX, that
spending the last three years destroying terrorist training camps, breaking up terror cells in the US and abroad, uncovering a multinational nuclear proliferation ring, forcing belligerent North Korea to the bargaining table, cowing Libya into giving up its WMD programs and terrorist support, and winning two wars against terrorist-supporting Islamofascist dictatorships in the process
makes the President look pretty smart to me.
MORE TO GROK:
Instapundit says pretty much the same thing I said.
And Ann Althouse:
In any case, my questions about Kerry's intelligence do not arise solely from my inference that he had a poor academic record and low standardized test scores. My questions are also based on his exasperatingly convoluted and unclear manner of speaking. This has been excused as a propensity for "nuance" and "complexity," but could also be caused by a lack of mental capacity. It could also be willful evasion. I'd really like to know.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:10 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 794 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Also, it makes for a rather more substantial war record than Kerry's 17 weeks in Vietnam.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 27, 2004 04:21 AM (kOqZ6)
2
Aw, shucks... Don't sell yourself short. I was curious how the Sadistics class was going.
You make a really good point about relative intelligence. The Cadets I taught were all close to the top of their high school class rankings, many of them valedictorians. All were extremely bright. But some had trouble with analysis and critical thinking. All their school career prior to USAFA was based in a great deal of rote learning. It was a tough slog for some who got Cs and Ds for the first time in their lives. The most rewarding part of the job was seeing that light come on over their heads!
Posted by: Mike at August 27, 2004 07:42 AM (MqNKC)
3
I agree with Mike, I think you're selling yourself short.
But you are right on the money about knowledge and application. To know facts, figures and such is very important. Yes. BUT in my mind, the application of that information, the ability to lead and make decisions based on that information is what is so key in execution. Our President is a great leader. He built a team of experts, those with the knowledge and expertise in certain areas, he manages the big picture based on their information. He makes decisions. That's what's so important.
I am a huge supporter of education. Knowledge is power. BUT some of the best leaders I've known and/or worked for were more street smart than book smart. They knew to surround themselves with those that know and use that to get the job done.
(Sorry to go off like this, but it's something that has been a thorn in my side since 2000. Guess I'm going to need to do a post on it eventually!)
Posted by: Tammi at August 27, 2004 08:15 AM (4Ls5e)
4
I haven't seen any evidence that Kerry is particularly intelligent. Using lots of big words strung together in complex sentences is not a sign of intelligence, but rather of a particular kind of family and educational background. And as Goethe said, "When ideas fail, words come in very handy."
Posted by: David Foster at August 27, 2004 10:20 AM (XUtCY)
5
If Dubya is dumb, he MY KIND of dumb. Dumb enough to get the job done without the total self-paralysis of Kerry's "nuanced" BS. Liberals think that trying to consider everything from every point of view is smart. While Kerry's standing there gazing at the sky and pondering, Bush is tying Kerry's shoelaces together, stealing his wallet and taping a "KICK ME" sign to his back. Besides, any man who can graduate from both Yale AND Harvard is plenty smart enough for me!
Posted by: CavalierX at August 27, 2004 10:23 AM (sA6XT)
6
My questions are also based on his exasperatingly convoluted and unclear manner of speaking.
If that's the criterion we're using for judging IQ, then Bush would be about
five points above a ficus plant.
I mean, really. Why don't you just attack Kerry for being too beholden to big oil and Christian fundamentalists?
Posted by: apostropher at September 10, 2004 08:00 PM (XA/yX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 22, 2004
BACKBONE
When the left-wing minions descended upon me a few months ago, spewing hatred and insults, it hurt. It hurts to be called names and told you're stupid and worthless. At that time, I found comfort in asking myself What Would Dubya Do? This is a man who has entire movies made about how worthless he is, yet he still manages to sleep at night. In terms of dealing with criticism and being self-confident, President George W. Bush is my personal hero. Whenever I feel down about myself, I remind myself that he deals with far worse every day.
I've read a couple of places today about how John Kerry is trying to get the FEC to shut down the SwiftVets ad. In my book, that makes Kerry about as spineless and weak-hearted as I am. I'm not a politician, so I'm allowed the luxury of feeling hurt when someone speaks bad of me; Kerry better get used to it if he plans on running the most hated country in the world.
I agree with LGF commenter William (found via Greyhawk) that this speaks volumes about Kerry's character.
While this is amusing and pathetic on the surface, what started as questions about Kerry's Vietnam era activity, Kerry has now turned into nothing less than a battle for free speech.
After Michael Moore's propaganda film, Bush never suggested it should be silenced.
After the moveon.org attack ads, Bush never suggested they should be silenced.
It's called freedom of speech (though Moore has moved perilously close to treason with his film while our troops are engaged in countries abroad).
Now Kerry seeks to silence free speech, because it's critical of his past.
For the blogosphere community, this has now moved past mocking the media for their absurdly obvious bias, and has become serious.
Kerry has changed the game with this move to shut down free speech.
If the media remain complicit now, they're not being complicit in smearing the SwiftVets, they're complicit in shutting down free speech -- the foundation of our society.
The "progressives" throw around labels of "fascism" and demonize John Ashcroft and Bush, but this has now become a battle for the country.
I don't think I'm exaggerating here. This has now become quite serious.
It is indeed serious. I grappled with this issue on my janky little blog -- whether to block certain commenters or close the comments section -- because I believe that people have the right to say what they think, even if it hurts my feelings. Shouldn't a presidential candidate in the United States of America believe in that as well?
MORE TO GROK:
More whining here. And Bunker writes about the media's fear.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:31 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 450 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I've been trying to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt, but this does it.
Sadly, one possible response to the WWDD question (nice alliteration) is that Dumbya don't cause he's too dumb. And/or insensitive.
Kerry, OTOH, is swift (SWIFT boat, get it?) to act on any threat, whether it be a terrorist or a homegrown critic. That's the kind of man I want in office. Decisive. So decisive he constantly makes contradictory decisions. But at least he uses his mind unlike the pretender for the throne, right? And he went to Vietnam nam nam nam ... (echoing)
Seriously, the issues you and Kerry face are not the same. You were being attacked on your own property. You have a right to defend it. So does Kerry - just like Chomsky. When Chomsky came under fire at his site, comments were taken down. Sad but not censorship. Censorship is the suppression of expression beyond one's own property. There are limits to what I will tolerate in my own domain, but with certain exceptions (e.g., libel) I will not impose the limits on those beyond it.
But here, Kerry is crossing the line and trying to impose his will beyond his domain. That is not someone I want messing with *my* domain.
Posted by: Amritas at August 22, 2004 05:53 AM (vDqr8)
2
Marc, you had me worried for a second. I thought you might have gone over to the dark side!
Posted by: Mike at August 22, 2004 02:09 PM (PDh3/)
3
Mike,
Whoa, I didn't realize how convincing I was getting. Some afterthoughts:
When I wrote,
"Decisive. So decisive he constantly makes contradictory decisions."
I meant to say something about how the quantity of "decisions" counts more than their quality (i.e., their consistency).
The main point I was trying to get at, however poorly made, was that Sarah does have the right to delete comments or remove them entirely from *her* blog if she wishes, whereas Kerry does not have a right to silence others *not* using his property. In short, Sarah was and is not a censor, which is what Kerry is trying to be. A censor for president? Never.
But force-loving Leftists would say "yes," though they would object to the word "censor." They are the good guys and only bad guys "censor." Like Bush. So why didn't Bush censor his opponents? Because they were small- r right! Uh huh.
Posted by: Amritas at August 23, 2004 01:41 AM (A8VTg)
4
Ha, Marc, it's like what we were saying about Sexual Harrassment Panda:
Gerald: You see, Kyle, we live in a liberal democratic society. And Democrats make sexual harrassment laws. These laws tell us what we can and can't say in the workplace and what we can and can't do in the workplace.
Kyle: Isn't that fascism?
Gerald: No! Because we don't call it fascism. Do you understand?
(Heh, it's not censorship if we don't call it censorship...)
Posted by: Sarah at August 23, 2004 01:55 AM (qi6n1)
5
The Sleeping Giant Awakens!
I am an Air Force vet. Vietnam and the 2 Gulf Wars. I have never done anything truly heroic. I take the Senior NCO Creed to heart. I believe in "Fly, Fight and WIN!" I spent last year in the desert. I left my wife and children to serve. I went and joined my daughter. My daughter is there now again, for the fourth time.
The John Kerry situation has brought back a lot of issues that I have kept hidden. I have had the honor of serving and we were permitted to win. That has meant more to me than I can say. The history of the world created by our unceremonious political removal from Vietnam is documented, but not well portrayed.
We were portrayed by John Kerry, and it coated us with his slime. That he is even being considered as Commander In Chief just makes my skin crawl. The same people that spit on us when we came home are his core supporters. This time around, they feel the politically correct necessity to say they support our troops, but oppose the war. Lip service only. They lie. They hate anyone who loves this country enough to actually stand up to protect it.
My heart goes out to the people who have lost loved ones. I know it must be hard. But to betray what they stood for because of your hurt is wrong. Good people died in Vietnam, Iraq and in all wars. To be quick to surrender in their memory is to betray them, and betray your country.
Protest all you want before the war is waged. Once the war has begun, it is time to truly support our troops by permitting them to fight and win. To be permitted to only fight and die and have the country change course only leaves our military, and our homeland more vulnerable.
The consequences of pulling out of Vietnam were enormous, but would pale in comparison to pulling out of Iraq. Terrorists have struck on our home soil. They are betting that we will lose our nerve, thanks to Somalia and Vietnam. The greatest military in the history of mankind can be totally undermined by cowards back home. It doesn't take courage to spout anti military and anti American garbage to a frothing ignorant crowd. It can actually get you the easy babes of the "movement".
What would the world look like if we had been given the opportunity to win in Vietnam? Without Jane "Hanoi Jane" Fonda and John Kerry and the communist sympathizers undermining us? 2 1/2 million Cambodians would be alive. Untold South Vietnamese would not have been murdered. We would not have to approach every skirmish wondering whether the "Peace in our time" crowd would succeed in undermining us.
Does anyone think we gained respect because we abandoned Vietnam? We lost respect. We provided future enemies with an exploitable weakness. If we had never entered Vietnam, nobody would have cared. But to go and quit is the worst. We can never let it happen again.
The untold story of the first Gulf War was the influence of those hard-core Vietnam vets that remained. In their hearts was NO QUIT! WE WILL NOT let that happen again! They could finally feel the sun shine on them again. The darkness of Vietnam will always be with them, but they could finally find peace.
Not so for the vets that were not part of it. I served stateside for the first Gulf War. My older brother, also a Vietnam vet, went. I was denied the opportunity. My reserve unit was not called up. I was requested by the active duty, but was held by my unit. That is one reason why this one is personal. I did go. I thought maybe I was too old, but I was called this time. I made my experience count. I am proud to have had the opportunity.
If the John Kerry crowd wins, we bail and America loses. It will all be for naught once again.
Would I go again? In a heartbeat. It is that important. To "spare" us, and suffer a terrible attack on our home soil would be the ultimate injustice.
We are doing the right thing. We have good people willing to sacrifice everything. Everyone I talked to in Iraq would gladly extend indefinitely if it would assure victory. Vigilant was more than a word. We may be a little too PC, but it will only help us in history if we win. If we abandon our troops mission, and bring them home, it may save their lives, but only at the expense of many innocent victims. We are trained and equipped to fight. It is our job. We have begun; we MUST be permitted to finish.
Vietnam vets don't want to bash Kerry. We have all tried very hard to put it behind us. John Kerry burned and branded us. He caused us to fight and die without the valor of winning. He married nice rich women and had a nice comfy life in the Senate. So be it, was our feelings. It is over. But by making his self-serving service his prime reason for being qualified to be president, he has awakened us. Painfully awakened us. We were disgraced, but we were never weak.
We are old now, but we still have heart. Our battle cry is "NEVER AGAIN!" The greatly abused sleeping giant is awake again, and forced to make a stand. My sleepless nights have returned. What was deeply buried is now deeply felt. We stood up during Vietnam. Our service was not supported. They were wrong then. They are wrong now. History has been hijacked. What should have been was undermined. WE were undermined.
This time we are home, and we can make a difference. We do not have to be ashamed any longer. Our mission is now to make sure that what happened to our generation NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN! We must stand up and be counted one more time. This is our battle, and we must win.
The change during Vietnam happened while we were over there. We had no influence. This time, we are here. We have an obligation to support our troops. Not with cowardly lip service, but with action. We need to make ourselves heard, and we need to make a difference. Our country needs us once again. Most important...VOTE! Have our voices heard! Our country needs our experience, knowledge and ability one more time. We can no longer hide our loyalty to our great country. Stand up and be counted! Write, talk to friends and family. Let them know how you feel. Permit our troops to win this one. "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more!"
Your country needs your service one more time. After we win, you can finally truly sleep. You will have accomplished your mission and won your war! I am proud of all of us. Stand up. Be proud! WELCOME HOME!
Posted by: Dave at August 25, 2004 03:06 AM (qmtI/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 15, 2004
QUESTIONS
I've come up with a few questions that I'd like to pose to military wives who think voting Kerry is in their best interest.
1. Kerry has recently been talking about reducing the number of troops in Iraq as soon as he gets into office. Would you support this measure, knowing that it might mean that your husband could be stretched even thinner and have less support and back-up on his missions?
2. Kerry has also said that the reduction of American troops will be made possible by the addition of foreign, especially Arab, troops. This question is rather hypothetical, given that to date no additional nations have agreed to send troops if Kerry were elected, but would you rather have your husband fighting alongside Arab soldiers instead of other Americans?
3. Kerry recently spoke out against the genocide in Sudan and said, "we must also start planning now for the possibility that the international community, acting through the United Nations, will be forced to intervene urgently to save the lives of the innocent." There's no question that the situation in Sudan is horrible, but would you want your husband to deploy there as part of a UN-led peacekeeping mission?
Yep, they're loaded questions. But the problem is that many wives hear the words "Kerry's gonna reduce the number of troops in Iraq" and they don't think about the fine print. A premature reduction of troops means less stability and more strain for those who are left there. Do we really want to vote for that?
Posted by: Sarah at
05:56 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I don't think it will matter who is in the Oval, we're in this for the long haul and I don't see a significant reduction in troops happening for at least 3-5 years. You're right though Sarah, he's playing to the yearnings of our wives and mothers.
Glad your hiatus wasn't a long one btw.
Posted by: Sgt Hook at August 16, 2004 12:01 AM (olp4a)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 12, 2004
FEAR
To be honest, this is what I fear most. I don't even want to think about an
assassination.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:51 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.
August 10, 2004
FOUR QUESTIONS
So Kerry would have
gone to war anyway, lack of WMDs and all. Um, huh? Anyway, he lays out four questions he'd like President Bush to answer. In the remaining 15 minutes before I have to leave for work, I am going to try to give the short answers:
Kerry challenged Bush to answer some questions of his own -- why he rushed to war without a plan for the peace, why he used faulty intelligence, why he misled Americans about how he would go to war and why he had not brought other countries to the table.
1) It's my understanding that we really were surprised by the insurgency. OK, mistake. I understand that American intelligence relied too heavily on what Iraqi exiles said would happen. They were wrong. The military has been frank about their shortcomings though. We're trying to fix the problem, but unfortunately we've got the entire world breathing down our necks now. My husband said his unit gets shot at from mosques but they're not allowed to do anything back. That's a problem. Oh, and all that build-up at the UN? That's not a "rush to war".
2) There's a big difference between lying and being wrong. We had some faulty intelligence. So did Clinton. So did Putin. Heck, so did Saddam. We all thought he had WMDs. We were told he tried to buy yellowcake, which for all the hullabaloo turned out to actually be true. Intelligence is not an exact science, and we did the best we could with what we had.
3) "Why he misled Americans about how he would go to war" is an odd question. I've heard it phrased about why we should go to war, but never how. I don't quite understand the accusation here. Heh, maybe he means why Bush said there'd be shock and awe, when really it looked pretty lame from the TV set in my grandma's sewing room...
4) Oh the glorious "other countries" charge. Here's what I'd say to John Kerry:
Look, moron, even someone with a free geocities account appears to be better informed than you. Put down the guitar, shut off your "rap music", and take time to count the countries that support us in Iraq. And count the waving coalition flags on the Rottweiler's blog. Just because your precious France isn't on board doesn't mean we're alone.
I'll fill in links later [done, as of 0945]; I have to go to work. Unlike Kerry, I have to show up more than 30% of the time.
Ba-zing!
MORE TO GROK:
RWN answers the questions too, and says nearly the same stuff I said.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:25 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 442 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Note, Kerry says the he'd have voted for the war regardless. He is not saying that he'd have gone to war regardless. He has said he only voted for the war to lend negotiation powers to the president, not for him to actually go to war. I don't think this sheds any more light on him than there was before.
Posted by: John at August 10, 2004 08:53 AM (crTpS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 09, 2004
INTERVIEW
It seems John Kerry has just as much trouble
remembering his words as his wife does. At least he didn't tell anyone to shove it though:
“John [Edwards] and I are going to put in place the principle, very simple: No young American in uniform should ever be held hostage to America’s dependence on oil in the Middle East.”
Kerry sat down with Stripes afterward to discuss the war, the stresses on the military and changes he would make.
Stripes: You said during your speech that never again would U.S. troops be hostage to a lousy energy policy —
Kerry: What I said is, I didnÂ’t say never again, I said I donÂ’t want them to be hostage.
Stripes: You think thatÂ’s whatÂ’s going on now?
Kerry: No. ThatÂ’s not related directly to the oil Â… and I never suggested that it is.
Read the whole interview; I think Kerry sounds pretty silly, especially when he says his friends vouch for him. And note the Vietnam junk in the last statement.
MORE TO GROK:
Greyhawk's got lots more.
Posted by: Sarah at
11:04 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Kerry sure has a high opinion of his diplomatic skills:
Stripes: Tommy Franks has said in his new book that we should be in Iraq for three to five years – does that sound like a fair estimate to you?
Kerry: I think that that estimate depends on the success of my diplomacy ... I know the power of my own diplomacy and I believe, and IÂ’m confident to say I can do a better job of bringing people to the table and reducing the burden on American troops. I know I can do it.
(emphasis mine)
What magical words will bring the troops back?
Sarah: "And note the Vietnam junk in the last statement."
Well, at least he didn't use the V-word. Maybe it's finally dawning on him that we get it ... sort of.
Posted by: Amritas at August 09, 2004 11:52 AM (p29W+)
2
Instalanche *grin* Congrats.
Since Kerry tends to say whatever he thinks sounds good at the moment (without regard to anything he has said previously) this does not surprise me in the least.
Posted by: Teresa at August 09, 2004 10:29 PM (nAfYo)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 08, 2004
GRAMMAR
Grammar fun with President Bush, found via
Pixy:
"Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?" Let us analyze that sentence for a moment. If you're a stickler, you probably think the singular verb "is" should have been the plural "are," but if you read it closely, you'll see I'm using the intransitive plural subjunctive tense. So the word "is" are correct.
In my sentences I go where no man has gone before...I am a boon to the English language.
We often hear people make fun of the President for the way he speaks. Even my own students occasionally call him dumb. I remind them that most of them screw their past participles up royally, that they are 20-30 years old but still mixing up there/their/they're, and that anyone whose extemporaneous speech is transcribed word for word is going to make grammar mistakes. The measure of a man is not grammatical accuracy but the message that's being conveyed. I'd much rather hear this
Anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice. There are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they are talking about if that is the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on.
than this
I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history. [emphasis mine]
MORE TO GROK:
The distinction:
In his landmark speech to Congress on September 21, 2001, George Bush told the world "you are either with us or against us". Today John Kerry told them "You are either with us, or against us---but if you're against us we'll be nice to you and hope you become our friend". Which guy would you trust your family's safety with?
MORE:
Hilarious: Kerry said almost the exact same thing that Bush said. Of course, no one suggested he's a halfwit because of it (via Allah).
Posted by: Sarah at
05:18 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Sarah - you're right. The other day they played a gaffe by the president on EVERY station I saw on TV plus the radio and internet. Yet NO ONE except for bloggers picked up on Kerry's 'more sensitive' war on terror. More sensitive? What the heck does THAT mean? I think President Bush speaks more like a NORMAL person who makes mistakes. At least you know who he is and what he stands for. With JK, it's about who the audience is. He changes from minute to minute. I find it heartening that President Bush laughs at himself. At least he is human with emotion.
Posted by: Kathleen A at August 08, 2004 09:05 AM (vnAYT)
2
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
I, for one, believe Our Great Leader.
Posted by: rfidtag at August 08, 2004 03:42 PM (XxIKf)
3
WooHoo Sarah - you are so on target with this. I heard Kerry "mispeak" a word last week (I think it was menator for senator) but did you hear about it in the media nope. I read it on a blog. But of course we all KNOW how useless blogs are ..... according to the media. LOL I'll take President Bush's gaffes any day instead of the waffling, nuanced Kerryspeake of a sensitive war on terror. What in all of stupidity does that mean? NOTHING. And that's what nuanced speak is: NOTHING.
Posted by: Toni at August 08, 2004 10:11 PM (3e3Je)
4
I was highly offended and shocked by the "bring 'em on" remark, since I had a son in the Army just arriving in Iraq at the time Bush said it.
Well, they were listening: and they certainly have brought it on. My son was telling me about the feeling that you get when you wonder whether you're going to wake up with no bottom half if your tent in a FOB gets hit with a mortar or rocket. Or when you see soldiers all messed up by roadside bombs.
Thank God he survived 15 months there unharmed, but I wonder how the families of those who have been killed and wounded feel about "bring 'em on."
Easy to say "bring 'em on" when you didn't even leave Baghdad airport.
Posted by: Five Niner at August 08, 2004 10:59 PM (Y+j+9)
5
Five niner, the purpose of the military is to engage the enemy and protect American citizens. Better to fight the enemy on our terms than to find another smoking hole in NYC.
Posted by: Sarah at August 09, 2004 01:21 AM (OFppu)
6
Ok, and what purpose did saying something stupid like "Bring 'em on" serve?
Hey, check this out, Sarah: there has been no connection shown between Iraq and 9/11. There have been no weapons of mass destruction found. The army is getting wrecked by overextension: my son's unit, after just getting back after 15 months, is scheduled to go back next July. The 173rd Airborne, which just came back in May after a year in Iraq, is going to Afghanistan in January for another year. Almost everyone is getting out of the Army and the Guard as soon as they can.
The author of "Imperial Hubris," an anonymous senior CIA analyst, has said that the incompetantly run Iraq invasion has been a gift to our enemies in al-Qaeda.
Sounds like we're fighting them on their terms.
Posted by: Five Niner at August 09, 2004 02:58 AM (Y+j+9)
7
Ahh...Our Great Leader has yet another pearl of Wisdom. When responding to a question posed by a Native American journalist on what he thought about the sovereignty of the Indian tribes in the U.S., Bush responded with: "sovereignty is well ... sovereignty, and if you have sovereignty you are sovereign."
Sarah...there is and never has been a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The military is not the right tool for this so-called War on Terror. If you lived in NYC you would recognize the we aren't any safer because of Iraq. But you don't, and you are not reasonable.
Posted by: rfidtag at August 09, 2004 07:55 AM (XxIKf)
8
Looks like I made a Bushism. Ooops. At least I can accept responsibility.
Posted by: rfidtag at August 09, 2004 07:56 AM (XxIKf)
9
Jesus, rfidtag, the whole point of this post was how Bush accepts responsibility for his malapropisms. Are you really so blinded by your Bush hatred that you can't see that?
And I'm almost afraid to ask, but if you don't think the military is the right answer, then what is?
Posted by: Sarah at August 09, 2004 09:46 AM (lKeVD)
10
The military is the right answer being wrongly used in the wrong place.
Afghanistan, no problem with that: we should have more troops there, even into Pakistan where most of the al-Qaeda seem to be hiding.
Iraq has been a tremendous diversion from the real war, and even if getting rid of Saddam was good on its own merits, it was incompetantly and corruptly (no-bid contracts to Halliburton) managed by the civilian leadership of the DoD.
Hell, Bush didn't even let the Marines take Fallujah after they shed so much blood and were on the brink of taking the city. It's still a haven for the guys killing our own.
Posted by: Five Niner at August 09, 2004 10:32 AM (Y+j+9)
11
We have a military tradition in my family, but I have advised my other son, and my nephews of military age not to volunteer until and unless Bush, Cheney and the rest of the chickenhawk crew is defeated and the grownups are in charge again, people that would listen to commanders like Gen. Shinseki. I have two stickers on my car "I'm the Proud Parent of A Soldier" and "Veteran for Kerry."
Posted by: Five Niner at August 09, 2004 10:39 AM (Y+j+9)
12
"Well, from the standpoint of the shrine, obviously it is a
sensitive area, and we are very much aware of its
sensitivity."
--Dick Cheney on the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf.
"Now in terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is -- we need to be very
sensitive on that."
--George W. Bush, at the Unity 2004 conference in Washington.
Emphasis mine.
Posted by: curveball at August 17, 2004 10:07 PM (4M6f+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
DISENGAGEMENT
This is a must-read analysis of Kerry's intentions in Iraq:
The Disengagement
And -- handful of oddballs I've talked to notwithstanding -- veterans and military families seem to support our current President (via Vodkapundit). I think it means that veterans and families want what's best for all of our servicemembers, and they don't seem to think Kerry's plan is what's best.
ALa71 writes about "adopting" a Soldier. My friends and I were talking about this the other day, about how strange it would be to not know someone downrange and to only know Soldiers who warblog. I said that, with everyone my husband knows, I have to monitor news about Tikrit, Mosul, Baqubah, and Najaf. I know more than enough people down there to keep me busy; it's hard to imagine that half of America doesn't know anyone in Iraq or Afghanistan. (And sometimes the ones who do only vaguely have a sense of "yeah, that one guy from my high school is in the Marines or something.") Around here, everything we do or say or think is somehow attached to the war; it's hard to imagine life otherwise.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:14 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Personally, I find these people sad and unfortunately I know lots of them. All ages with no true connection to this war. They don't even read the warblogs cause it's just too much work and they are toooooo busy. I'm their only connection and sometimes I may lay it on thick but that's all that keeps this war real to them. It's very sad situation and sometimes it does get to me cause they don't feel a duty as an American to support our troops for all that they do and sacrifice. Think I'd better stop right there. LOL I could go on but I won't. Thanks and keep doing what you do.
Posted by: Toni at August 08, 2004 10:17 PM (3e3Je)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 05, 2004
LOW
I read about this the other day, but I just didn't post a link. Sure, Ms. Heinz-Kerry might not know what chili is, but whatever. Paris Hilton had never heard of Walmart, right? But the fact that the Democrat candidates
faked going to Wendy's just for the photo op (which backfired majorly when the Marines rebuffed them) when they knew they had gourmet food waiting for them on the bus is just...low.
Where's that guy from Family Guy episode 36 to yell "You're a great big phony!" every time Kerry walks by?
Posted by: Sarah at
03:59 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Sarah
You may be interested to know that tonight's episode of Family Guy on Cartoon Network was episode 36, with the guy running around yelling at Peter "You're a great big phony!"
Best
James
Posted by: James Sloan at August 06, 2004 04:17 AM (PJE1m)
2
How wildly appropriate...
Posted by: Sarah at August 06, 2004 08:18 AM (zx82f)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 02, 2004
GASP
Less than one week ago, I wrote my husband a letter about what I'd like to see for the future of our country, compared to what I think will really happen. I said at one point that I don't see the US getting rid of the IRS anytime in the near future.
Perhaps I spoke too soon. This made me sit up and gasp.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:20 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It's a nice thought--I certainly wouldn't mind not having to file an income tax form each year, but frankly, I'm not such a big fan of this idea.
Consider the following basic fact--the government needs revenue. If it doesn't get it from an income tax, it will get it from somewhere else, either as a national sales tax or a value-added tax. [For example, Great Britain uses the latter--its tax rate is 17.5%, and that's on top of a 22% income tax.]
So, we can get rid of the IRS, but if we want to eliminate income taxes completely, we'll end up with a new sales tax/VAT with a rate most likely between 20 and 30 percent. [If you think that's too high, consider we're running a $450 billion deficit with income taxes at the same rate.]
That means my $80 grocery bill becomes a $100 bill, my $16,000 car becomes a $20,000 car, and my $2.19 a gallon for gas becomes $2.73 a gallon. Over time, that's going to hurt.
Now, I don't know about you, but I also know that I don't pay out 20 to 30 percent of my income in taxes. [I'm just a student.] This means that getting rid of the income tax and imposing a sales tax or VAT means that my taxes will go up, not down. For the most part, this will be a tax on consumption and spending.
Once again, the ultimate net effect of such a plan would be to transfer the tax burden from the wealthiest down to the rest of us.
All in all, it would be a monumentally bad idea--unless, of course, you're a millionaire, in which case it might not be so bad. If we really wanted to reform our system, and make it more equitable to everyone, we'd be much better off lowering the tax rate on wages and salaries and increasing the rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains. [Not that that will ever happen.]
[Also, how would we deal with collecting and transferring the revenue from state to federal government, and who would like to deal with all the bureaucracy involved in those transactions, and in dealing with loopholes, exemptions, and other miscellaneous details that would result from implementing a VAT? You'd still need an IRS-like agency--they just wouldn't necessarily make you fill out a form each year.]
Posted by: Can't win at August 02, 2004 09:05 PM (aQOKC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
99kb generated in CPU 0.0974, elapsed 0.1512 seconds.
57 queries taking 0.1339 seconds, 203 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.