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
July 31, 2004
HOPE
As commenter kdeweb said, "This is HI-larious."
Kerry
tried to shake some Marines' hands...
MORE TO GROK:
And I love the caption Duane put on the photo!
Posted by: Sarah at
09:06 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I love the look of the Marine on the right. Looking over at Kerry like "what the hell is he doing?"
Hee hee. Sorry - I'm easily entertained right now.
Posted by: Tammi at August 01, 2004 11:21 AM (mfDpJ)
2
Thanks, I try. And every once in a while I actually come up with a good one!
Thank your husband for his service. And thank you for yours. My sister is a Navy wife so I have some understanding of your sacrifice.
Posted by: Duane at August 01, 2004 02:45 PM (bUHuL)
3
when I was in the corps, they taught us manners. To bad that's no longer required.
Posted by: John Bravenec at August 02, 2004 01:32 PM (hKTk0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 30, 2004
CARPET BOMBING
Amritas pointed me to a
Nelson Ascher post that I wish I'd seen yesterday.
All this to say that hearing day after day, reading hour after hour, watching minute after minute for months and months all the liberal media, that is, basically all the media telling me that Kerry will win, that Bush doesnÂ’t have a chance is not only exhausting. ItÂ’s just natural that for a couple of minutes or even hours a week my rational defenses will be taking some rest, and if this happens repeatedly, the message about the inevitability of a Kerry victory will begin to grow roots in my brain. And this makes me afraid because I know weÂ’re watching the most complete, worldwide, continuous media effort ever to influence an election. What the world media is doing is the most aggressive, savage campaign of carpet-bombing in human history.
I've succumbed to the carpet-bombing. Many people I know and bloggers I read have also succumbed. We're weary and dejected. I talked to a Soldier who just yesterday -- just yesterday -- found out that Kerry attended anti-war rallies after he came home from Vietnam. Just. Yesterday. The brainwashing the media has done is incredible, and it absolutely makes me want to cry.
My laser beam is in trouble. So is Ascher's, it seems. Nelson, we have to stay strong. We have to refocus. We have to Forget the Idiots Today, like you encouraged me to do on 9-11-03:
I also know I should avoid reading much today, because many, probably most things that are and will be published will make me even angrier. And the problem is not that I don't want to be angrier: I do want. The problem is that I do not want to waste a miligram of my anger on all the idiots who have been getting ready to show us how idiotic they are. We're at a point where to be too angry at, say, Chomsky and the BBC, Old Europe and ANSWER, second and third rate entertainers and academics is to give them a kind of victory. They deserve disdain. Anger needs to remain concentrated like light in a laser beam, we must direct it toward its rightful target: Islamofascism first and foremost. If we spend too much time getting mad at those who are but idiots we run the risk of forgetting, even if only for a second, that it is the Muslim/Arab religious fanatics who are the ENEMY. In a way, that's the idiots' main weapon: to attract a wrath that could be more usefully directed to the really dangerous enemies. Whenever we're not thinking about the Jihadists we are losing some very precious time. And anger.
We need to stay strong. I have so much anger for the media these days that it's starting to cloud my resolve. I need to refocus. That Soldier who just yesterday learned of Kerry's anti-war past got a list of links to follow. He's open to the truth, and he'll find it eventually. And maybe he'll tell a friend.
Posted by: Sarah at
10:13 AM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
Post contains 513 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Sarah,
All we can do is keep pointing people in the right direction. Kerry's record can be fact checked all over the internet and after last nights speech there are quite a few points we can make.
Kerry says he's a leader.
Fact: Not one piece of legislature has his name on it.
Kerry says he's for the military.
Fact: Not once did he vote for an increase in military spending.
Kerry says he will make the military more hi-tech.
Fact: He did not approve funding for F-14, F-15, F-16, Patriot Missle, AH-64 Apache, etc.
I focused on military issues because of where you are, but most of his 'key note" issues are not backed up by his past voting record. Keep your chin up, all hope is not lost.
Posted by: Brass at July 30, 2004 10:46 AM (SrRJG)
2
Why so much anger? Don't worry.
Hope is on the way.
I am rfidtag and I approve this message.
Posted by: rfidtag at July 30, 2004 10:54 AM (XxIKf)
3
I'm not entirely sure from which outlets you get your news, but this week, I basically haven't watched TV, because the coverage is constantly on the DNC convention. So this week has been a bad one.
The other day, I saw a young punk driving his souped-up Honda Civic--you know, the kind with the huge spoiler?--with not one, but two Bush/Cheney stickers on the bumper. In PENNSYLVANIA.
This week's convention taints everything in the news. I have no doubt that the media is incredibly biased and trying to influence the election, but I think it will get (a little) better when the Republican convention rolls into town. The thing I most fear is not the pre-election buzz, but the thought of problems with ballot counting.
Hang tough, we'll get there.
Posted by: Carla at July 30, 2004 11:02 AM (r5M6F)
4
I'm actually feeling pretty good about things and the trends I observe in those around me.
Beyond hyped media coverage, I see almost zero enthusiasm for Kerry locally, and quite a bit more for Bush than I did the last time he was elected.
Isn't Iowa a battle ground state?
Posted by: John at July 30, 2004 11:32 AM (+Ysxp)
5
As a side note, both Kerry and Bush will be in my town on Wednesday the 4th, should be intersting.
Posted by: John at July 30, 2004 11:33 AM (+Ysxp)
6
I just found your site. I understand your dejection but keep slogging through the swamp of misinformation from the MSM. I enjoy reading blogs from military families. You all help me get through the worry and the uncertainty. Years ago I was in your position as the wife of a deployed soldier, now I am the mother. Deployments are a time of ups and downs (emotionally mostly downs), but it is also a time for us to fight. We must fight against the lies in the media to protect the morale of those overseas. We must fight with the truth. You are performing a service. You are just as important as those doing the heavy lifting in Iraq. Today you have the internet to communicate with others who think as you do. Don't get discouraged - your sanity, your voice, and your web site will help your country, your military, and your husband. The truth will win in the end. GO BUSH.
Posted by: Navy Mom at July 30, 2004 01:07 PM (b/7hi)
7
Kerry will be a smart courageous president just as he was a smart courageous hero in Vietnam. He will be someone the military as well as the general public can and will respect. Unlike the dim bulb in the white house now Kerry will also get the respect of the rest of the world. God knows we need it.
Posted by: dc at July 30, 2004 03:43 PM (s6c4t)
8
dc,
Just like he was in Vietnam? So your saying we will only get a President for four months? Sounds about right.
Posted by: Brass at July 30, 2004 04:57 PM (SrRJG)
9
Kerry, as you know served two terms of duty in Vietnam, both times as a volunteer. On his second tour he commanded a fast boats up the river into enemy territory. It was on this second tour that Kerry was wounded under fire recieving three purple hearts, a bronze star and a silver star. It was US policy that after taking hostile fire resulting in three injuries any service member has paid his dues in full and was entitled to go stateside. Do you have a problem with the fact that Kerry saw so much action that he did this in only four months?
Posted by: dc at July 30, 2004 05:58 PM (s6c4t)
10
I have a problem with the fact he put himself in for all those awards. I have a problem with the fact that he bad mouthed his fellow service men when he returned to the US. I have a problem with him taking the one noble thing he ever did (service to the US) and tarnishing it by his actions then and now. That is the problem I have.
Posted by: Brass at July 30, 2004 06:29 PM (SrRJG)
11
Sarah,
Keep the faith.
Kalroy
Posted by: Kalroy at July 30, 2004 07:40 PM (q1aeu)
12
For those of you "claiming" Kerry nominated himself for his awards had better re-read the citations. Of course re-reading them would involve comprehension, and I see so little of that here. Including the "site-owner"
Posted by: Anonamoose at July 30, 2004 08:35 PM (4pVZJ)
13
It's only natural to feel carpet bombed at this point; this is the nadir.
As for me, I'm holding fire until September (except from time to time when I just can't hold back, like today). Remember, we're after the undecided and the backslidden, not the choir or the enemy.
Keep the faith.
Posted by: pedro at July 30, 2004 10:40 PM (WwaHk)
14
There should be no surpise that thoughtful members of the military support Kerry. He is one of the band of brothers brought together and forever bonded by common war experience. Kerry is also a real hero. He is living proof that the US military never leaves a fellow soldier behind. At great personal risk, while injured, he turned his boat around and went back to save the life of Green Beret Rassman who was blown into the water and was taking fire from both sides of the river. Kerry exposed himself to the fire while pulling Rassman into the boat with his good arm. This is the kind of man any soldier can admire and respect as commander in chief. Compare him with Bush and you see why so many soldiers will be voting for Kerry in November.
Posted by: dc at July 30, 2004 11:02 PM (s6c4t)
15
Sarah - don't be weary - have faith. Any 'man' who returns during a time of war to LIE about our brave soldiers is a traitor. Listen to his words (all of which were disproved go to
Winter Soldier to see for yourself).
Here are two sound files that you should send to ANYONE who is feeling down and out. John Kerry is AGAINST using force for ANY reason. Any potential president after 9/11 (and while we're at war) who would say 'we will respond forcefully to any attack' - is missing the point of acting BEFORE we're attacked.
U.S. Soldiers are War Criminals
John Kerry committed war crimes
Keep your chin up. Truth will prevail.
Posted by: Kathleen Acton at July 30, 2004 11:17 PM (vnAYT)
16
After the Abu Garab prison scandel photos provided documented proof that soldiers in an immoral war without proper supervision can stoop to the level of sadistic tortureres can anyone doubt the veracity of the testimony soldiers gave about their experiences in Vietnam? What do you want, pictures?
Can you not except the testimony of hundreds of US soldiers with nothing to gain but their immortal souls back by telling the truth.
Posted by: dc at July 31, 2004 12:11 AM (s6c4t)
17
Just as I don't paint supporters of Kerry with the same brush (of ALL being stupid) I WON'T paint all 140,000 soldiers in Iraq as being engaged in criminal behavior.
Our biggest problem isn't Abu Graib - our biggest problem is being sidetracked from the fact that the ENEMY will do worse (and is doing worse) to everyone they get their hands on. They are not part of the Geneva Convention (which doesn't excuse the 20 soldiers that abused prisoners) - but the point is - ONE DIRTY CRIMINAL DOES NOT THE ENTIRE MILITARY MAKE.
Posted by: Kathleen A at July 31, 2004 01:06 AM (vnAYT)
18
I take it you would rather have these atrocities swept under the rug, ingored and unpunished.
Look, Kerry after his service in Vietnam told the truth about what was happening in Vietnam. So too did a soldier recentlyin Iraq just a few short months ago when he anonomously wrote to his commanding officer about the atrocities at Abu Garab. Both did the right thing by telling the truth about what was going on.
You don't like it cause it reflects poorly on the entire military. Tough. But everone knows that it the result of command failure that these things are allowed to happen. Command failure starts at the top. Just like in Vietnam when civilian commanders screwed up, so too is Bush, Rumsfield and the other neocons screwing up in Iraq. Just like in Vietnam where the majority of soldiers thought the war was a mistake so too in Iraq where the majority of soldiers feel likewise. When the civilian leadership scews the pooch big time so that the military looks bad it is no wonder so many people demand a change in that leadership.
Posted by: dc at July 31, 2004 02:15 AM (s6c4t)
19
Knock it off with the Abu Ghraib crap. I'm sure you've heard of the
Stanford Prison Experiment, where regular old college students resorted to torture and humiliation of their fellow students; the experiment had to be called off in a mere
five days because it was getting out of control. And these were not insurgents who had actually killed one's brothers in arms; these were classmates divided up arbitrarily. So save me the "command failure" and "immoral war" bullshit. Kathleen is right, the enemy is doing much worse.
Posted by: Sarah at July 31, 2004 04:52 AM (MEwtV)
20
Sarah - don't lose hope. I was in a political chatroom recently. Someone was talking about swing states saying this and this state would for sure go to Kerry so they really didn't have anything to worry about. One of those states was Minnesota. I told the person Minnesota was not "in the bag" for Kerry. It was very close and that Minnesota's Republican base has grown over the past 10 yrs to the point of the state being almost evenly split. The person was amazed and had no clue and could only say but Minnesota has always gone for the Democrats. I told the person President Bush only lost by 4% in the 2000 race. They had no clue and that is I think going to be the downfall of rank and file Democrats. They don't listen!
Posted by: Toni at July 31, 2004 08:58 AM (BtkvW)
21
Sarah, you proved my point about 'command failure' and out of controll soldiers by reference to the Stanford Prison Experiment. How else to explain perfectly norman Americans acting in such perfectly atrocious ways?
What I don't get however is how you can excuse any soldiers angry lashing out at the enemy just because they killed one of his brothers in arms. Isn't that exactly what the enemy is supposed to do? It is a simple fact of war that while our soldiers are trying to kill them they are likewise trying to kill ours. As human beings I am sure that fighters on both sides feel anger and hatred towards each other. After all they are trying to kill each other. But in a professional military these emotions cannot be allowed to be expressed through torture or the brutilization of the other side. You may scoff at the moral constraints on warfare but let me reassure you, once we lose the moral high ground the war is as good as lost militarily as well.
Posted by: dc at July 31, 2004 11:47 AM (s6c4t)
22
The fundamental problem is that those who control most of the communications channels in this country...from news commentators to entertainers to college professors...have decided to destroy Bush, and they are using the full resources of their organizations to accomplish this. (These are resources that do not belong to them; they belong to the shareholders, taxpayers, or whoever..but this doesn't deter them.) The behavior is particularly egregious in the case of the major networks and their affliates, who have government-protected monopolies (in the form of their licenses ri exclusive frequencies) and who thus have an affirmative duty to present things in a reasonably balanced way, but seem to be making remarkably little attempt to do so.
Thank goodness for the Internet.
Posted by: David Foster at August 01, 2004 12:23 AM (XUtCY)
23
Sarah:
You WILL NOT give up! "Never, ever, ever, give up!" You know who rallied his fellow citizens with those words.
To borrow from Sir Winston some more, I am one of the "so many" who "owe so much" to you, one of the "so few". In this new information age, where the mainstream media are so obviously advocating for Kedwards, and are so viscerally antagonistic toward the Iraq campaign, and subtly (and sometimes not-so-subtly) antagonistic toward your husband, Gator Six, SFC Chromey, LCDR Smash, and all the other men and women who are giving of themselves for us their families, and their comrades-in-arms--we here in the states who don't have someone close to the field of battle, we NEED the Sarahs,Mrs. Chromedomes, the Tims. We even need the Citizen Smashes, too, who come back, see the situation here, assess it, and defend his C in C (and the justness of this campaign), and tells the TRUTH.
You, Sarah, are a bearer of truth. Many of the Old Testament prophets open their books with the phrase, "The BURDEN of the Lord...": bearing the truth is a burden. Sometimes bearing the truth sucks. But you chose to marry your Soldier-husband. He chose to enlist (or be commissioned?). Of course, neither of you chose this world, this time of national crisis. But perhaps Divine Providence has placed you there? (I confess: (I hold to the concept espoused by our founding fathers which they alluded to in our Declaration of Independence.) "Who knows but that you were born for such a time as this?"
Long, I know. But meant to encourage you. I do wish I could contribute again. I served in the USN back in the Carter years, and am now too old--besides, I understand the Navy is going to draw down some 8,000 Sailors in FY '05! What are they thinking?! Oh, well a different topic, a different post.
Keep the faith, check six, and steady as she goes.
GBY,
Jim
Posted by: Jim Shawley at August 01, 2004 12:55 AM (uyTD+)
24
To DC:
You, sir (I assume), are (to be charitable) out of line. You engage in non sequitur postings, and throw up specious arguments, and attempt to condemn the whole by taking the micro and extrapolating out to the macro. Typical stunt performed by lazy polemists.
Speaking of non-sequiturs, I know without a doubt there is no gold in Alaska. I've never found any there (of course, that I've never been to Alaska may or may not be germane to the issue--all depends on which political party I am a member of). In like manner, that there have "only" been 35 155mm howitzer shells packed with binary sarin found in Iraq, since I haven't found any, I suppose that means there aren't any stockpiles.
Don't bother arguing; you would be wasting your time as well as mine and Sarah's: She and I, as well as all of us who look at this world without rose-colored glasses are not going to be swayed by malarky and nonsense.
Cordially,
Jim
Posted by: Jim Shawley at August 01, 2004 01:17 AM (uyTD+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
MUST READ
Many thanks to
Bunker for pointing me in the direction of
The Case for George W. Bush. I do not understand the gut feelings of distaste that many have for President Bush, for when I look at him I see a man who is
sincere and
down to earth. But despite Junod's revulsion, he manages to look past the ad hominem. The part that gave me chills:
In 1861, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and historians today applaud the restraint he displayed in throwing thousands of American citizens in jail. By the middle of 2002, George W. Bush had declared two American citizens enemy combatants, and both men are still in jail at this writing, uncharged. Both presidents used war as a rationale for their actions, citing as their primary constitutional responsibility the protection of the American people. It was not until two years later that Congress took up Lincoln's action and pronounced it constitutionally justified. Our willingness to extend Bush the same latitude will depend on our perception of what exactly we're up against, post-9/11. Lincoln was fighting for the very soul of this country; he was fighting to preserve this country, as a country, and so he had to challenge the Constitution in order to save it. Bush seems to think that he's fighting for the very soul of this country, but that's exactly what many people regard as a dangerous presumption. He seems to think that he is fighting for our very survival, when all we're asking him to fight for is our security, which is a very different thing. A fight for our security? We can handle that; it means we have to get to the airport early. A fight for our survival? That means we have to live in a different country altogether. That means the United States is changing and will continue to change, the way it did during and after the Civil War, with a fundamental redefinition of executive authority.
Posted by: Sarah at
08:46 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Hi Sarah. Hope all is well your way.
I do not understand the gut feelings of distaste that many have for President Bush, for when I look at him I see a man who is sincere and down to earth.
Ron Reagan Jr. wrote an item which may aid your
understanding; it's essentially a laundry list of
the past three plus years. Perhaps it will help:
The Case Against George W. Bush
Politicians will stretch the truth. They'll exaggerate their accomplishments, paper over their gaffes. Spin has long been the lingua franca of the political realm. But George W. Bush and his administration have taken "normal" mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. On top of the usual massaging of public perception, they traffic in big lies, indulge in any number of symptomatic small lies, and, ultimately, have come to embody dishonesty itself. They are a lie. And people, finally, have started catching on.
None of this, needless to say, guarantees Bush a one-term presidency. The far-right wing of the country—nearly one third of us by some estimates—continues to regard all who refuse to drink the Kool-Aid (liberals, rationalists, Europeans, et cetera) as agents of Satan. Bush could show up on video canoodling with Paris Hilton and still bank their vote. Right-wing talking heads continue painting anyone who fails to genuflect deeply enough as a "hater," and therefore a nut job, probably a crypto-Islamist car bomber. But these protestations have taken on a hysterical, almost comically desperate tone. It's one thing to get trashed by Michael Moore. But when Nobel laureates, a vast majority of the scientific community, and a host of current and former diplomats, intelligence operatives, and military officials line up against you, it becomes increasingly difficult to characterize the opposition as fringe wackos.
Does anyone really favor an administration that so shamelessly lies? One that so tenaciously clings to secrecy, not to protect the American people, but to protect itself? That so willfully misrepresents its true aims and so knowingly misleads the people from whom it derives its power? I simply cannot think so. And to come to the same conclusion does not make you guilty of swallowing some liberal critique of the Bush presidency, because that's not what this is. This is the critique of a person who thinks that lying at the top levels of his government is abhorrent. Call it the honest guy's critique of George W. Bush.
And there's so much more. Best wishes, Al.
Posted by: Big Al at July 30, 2004 09:00 PM (aaw7a)
2
Oops! Here's the link:
http://www.esquire.com/cgi-bin/printtool/print.cgi?pages=5&filename=/features/articles/2004/040729_mfe_reagan.html&x=64&y=6
Posted by: Big Al at July 30, 2004 09:01 PM (aaw7a)
3
Section 9, Clause 2 of the United States Constituion reads:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. "
Pundits and journalists who write about Lincoln suspension of Habeas Corpus as outside of constitutional law should first read the Constitution. The southern states were clearly in rebellion against the country. Public Safety clearly required Lincoln take drastic action including the arrest of rebels throughout the country wherever they be found.
Today however we face no such crisis. Terrorism is a criminal matter not one of national survival. England fought the IRA, Germany fought the Red Brigade, and numerous other western democracies fought terrorists using both their military and international law enforcement agencies as well as domestic police forces.
Those who see the fight against al quida in purely military terms are playing right into the hands of the terrorists strategy: make it a battle between the Christian West and the Islamic countries. By falling for this Crusader mentality we grow our enemies faster than we can ever defeat them.
The solution takes wiser leadership than we currently have in Washington. Bush and the neocons are certain in their convictions, I'll give them that, but haven't a clue beyond belligerance.
Posted by: dc at July 31, 2004 01:27 PM (s6c4t)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 29, 2004
PLEDGE
The other night I talked to a group of NRA-belonging, terrorist-hating Soldiers who do not plan to vote for President Bush, and I lost all the wind from my sails. If they're not voting for President Bush, the die-hard capitalist right-wingers from Oklahoma, then who will? This week I've begun to ready myself for a Bush defeat, just to be emotionally prepared. To be honest, I'm disappointed that I'm not more optimistic, but I just see so many factors working against President Bush.
The president plays a major role in my life. Whoever he is, he will be my husband's commander-in-chief and will determine a lot about our life over the next four years. And he will be due the respect that his title deserves. As MAJ Winters said in Band of Brothers, "We salute the rank, not the man."
I therefore take Dean Esmay's pledge:
Now here is my interesting question: I've made myself some friends among conservatives by speaking this way. But I do find myself wondering: how many of you on the right will embrace such a philosophy if John Kerry should carry the election in November?
I don't want to hear why you think it won't happen. Indulge me: pretend it might. How many of you will have the patriotism to say, "I disagree with many of his policy directions, I do not think he is conducting our foreign policy in the right way, but I will do my best to get behind him and support him until elections come around next time?"
I'm genuinely curious. For that is the stance I intend to take. I will refuse to call him traitor, loser, liar, incompetent. He will be my President, my Commander In Chief, the Chief Executive of a great nation, elected by the will of a majority of the electors in these 50 great united States. So even if he does things I disagree with in conducting foreign policy, I will say, "I respectfully disagree with the President's directions, but I will do my best to express my dissent respectfully and hope that I am mistaken and that he has made the proper decisions after all."
That's my pledge. How many of you will take a similar one?
I will make that pledge, as I have already pledged before. But I also echo Bunker's dismay:
As long as Kerry, if elected, acts like a President I will support him as one. Too bad Dubya wasn't given that opportunity.
MORE TO GROK:
And it's a good thing I found out about this Vietnam video before he became president, so there's still time to laugh at what a douche he is! Seriously, it's been three hours and I'm still giggling.
Posted by: Sarah at
05:55 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 455 words, total size 3 kb.
1
And just who are they going to vote for and why? Nobody? Kerry? Nader?
I'm kinda curious as to their mindset against Bush.
Posted by: John at July 29, 2004 08:17 AM (crTpS)
2
There may still be "time to laugh at what a douche he is" but at least Kerry was there. I can certainly understand why those serving in the military would value that experience and might not support someone who avoided military service.
Please not that Clinton was, bluntly, a tool and this also applies to him. I can understand why soldiers disliked him and the contempt with which his administration treated them.
Posted by: John Bravenec at July 29, 2004 04:49 PM (hKTk0)
3
Just because you are from Oklahoma doesn't mean you are a "die-hard capitalist right-winger." Like most things, political views are hardly ever black and white. People have free will and defy sterotypes. I was born and raised in Oklahoma. And as an Oklahoman, I resent when people pigeon hole me or my home state.
Dubya has made his case for four years. Let the people decide if his leadership has lived up to his promises.
Posted by: rfidtag at July 29, 2004 08:58 PM (/qocr)
4
Rfidtag, I too was born in Oklahoma, and all of my mom's family still lives there. But I promise you I will never lump you in with us...
Posted by: Sarah at July 30, 2004 04:18 AM (ygMv4)
5
John Bravenec, and joining the National Guard is not avoiding military service...
Posted by: Sarah at July 30, 2004 04:19 AM (ygMv4)
6
Sarah it is good to know you are a fellow Oklahoman. My family still lives scattered throughout Oklahoma, and Texas.
And no, I am not some black sheep who fled to NYC. I would have to say that my whole family is fairly independent and open minded. They are no sheep.
Posted by: rfidtag at July 30, 2004 11:00 AM (XxIKf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
KERRY
(via LGF) I wish all those people who spent eight bucks and two hours on
Fahrenheit 9/11 would spend 12 minutes watching the
Kerry On Iraq Documentary. I heard one person say that Moore's movie made President Bush look incompetent; well, Republicans can put together a series of clips that makes Kerry look just as bad.
MORE TO GROK:
Apparently Kerry already put together his own movie, which makes him sound like a complete tool. I can only imagine what my husband would say if I asked him what he'd think of a soldier reenacting glory scenes for film. Cripes.
(My brother and I used to make fake documentaries about him as a basketball player, with me as the announcer and interviewer. That seems really dorky to me now, and we were 9 and 7 when we did it. I can't believe Kerry was doing these things when he was an adult.)
Posted by: Sarah at
03:49 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Something about these films mr. Kerry made on his own bothers me a bit: Is this how he thinks of himself, 30 years ago? Have these movies become his memories of that time?
Living in the past is bad enough, but in a fantasy past?
-Tym
Posted by: Tym at July 29, 2004 11:22 AM (jKm1z)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
SHARPTON
I can't find a script online, but this morning I caught a few minutes of Al Sharpton's speech at the DNC. He was talking about how he hopes people have learned this year that anyone can rise up from welfare or a broken home to run for President of the United States, and the crowd went wild.
How much money does John Kerry have again?
Posted by: Sarah at
03:22 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.
July 22, 2004
MASTERSTROKE
I consider Den Beste to be one of the keenest thinkers out there, so when
he writes so confidently about the Bush campaign, it really boosts my spirits. This election is not only the first one I've followed closely, but it has a direct effect on my life. The president is my husband's boss, and whoever is elected will determine what my husband does for the next four years. With President Bush, I see continued efforts in Iraq, and Iran on the horizon. It certainly won't be an easy four years, but at least I know where we stand. With Kerry, I don't know what I see; I think he'd leave the troops in Iraq, but for how long? I see my husband roped into doing more of the UN's work around the world, being sent on "peacekeeping missions" if Kerry is president. That means instead of the fear of being killed by an insurgent, we can worry that he might get killed by
one of his own teammates...
Wives around here seem to be more and more anxious to talk about the election; I keep finding myself roped into conversations with people who somehow think that if Kerry is elected, their husbands will come home from Iraq on Nov 3. If only it were that simple. I sorta fear the military wife vote this year, because so many of them will be voting with their hearts, hoping that a vote for Kerry is a vote for an exit strategy. I think they'll be sorely mistaken and disappointed with the result.
I hope Den Beste is right and the Bush campaign has a suckerpunch coming. I see a lot of ammo piling up that should be used (i.e. Sandy Berger, Joseph Wilson), so I hope President Bush really is waiting for the masterstroke. I don't want this election to be as close as I fear it's going to be.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:56 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 321 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Judging from this post, I'd say you get most if not all of your political info from right-wing blogs.
In reverse order: Sandy Berger and Joseph Wilson are great fodder for the already converted (if you look around on meme-o-randum, you'd think the pope just ate a baby. Man, are those guys vitriolic), but have actually little bearing on the important issues. Sandy Berger, who has been under investigation for 9 months, has stepped down from the Kerry campaign (stiil, a little late if you ask me) and whether Joe Wilson is a liar or not (I believe he hyped his own role) has nothing to do with the the fact that a NOC was outed.
But why do you so fervently hope that Bush is waiting for the masterstroke? What exactly has Bush done to deserve your vote?
You're right that electing Kerry will not change much for your husband, mainly because the current administration didn't leave many options. However there is one way in which Kerry has a big advantage; a big sigh of relief by most of US allies, and if Kerry plays his cards right, a greater goodwill, essential for the WoT.
On a last point: I understand tragedies like the one you link to, can be worrisome, but the casualties resulting from the invasion of Iraq and a potential invasion of Iran will be hundreds of times greater.
Posted by: Sander at July 22, 2004 06:57 AM (3nJmx)
2
Sander, the people who would be sighing in relief are not people I consider our allies. I don't care what they think or if the US is liked in the world. And though the casualties from Iraq number greater than those at the UN, I see the reason for those deaths as being more important. Servicemembers in Iraq are fighting so that the situation in the Middle East stops affecting us (a la 9/11); those in "peacekeeping" missions are not there for the US's military advantage. The role of the military is to protect Americans, not make sure other countries don't beat each other up. I firmly believe that fighting in the Middle East can protect Americans in the long run...
What has Bush done to deserve my vote? Represent many of the things I think are important in this world. Kerry simply hasn't.
Posted by: Sander at July 22, 2004 07:27 AM (FLCKL)
3
Sarah,
I admire your lucidity under fire in dealing with the likes of Sander. But the Kerry future you see is worse than you imagine. Kerry would continue the war on terror half-heartedly – which is the most dangerous possibility of all, for your husband, and for the rest of us.
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at July 22, 2004 03:42 PM (Zbdxo)
4
The likes of Sander? I like that. Anyway, David, halfheartedly like letting Osama slip away to deal with a non-threatening country? Halfheartedly like firing translators because they were gay? Halfheartedly like doing nearly nothing to secure our ports? Halfheartedly like... you catch my drift, I hope, at least I want to, but the problem is this: The tough guy / my way or the high way attitude is not working anymore. Resentment is up, both in our enemies, would-be enemies and allies. I know, you don't care, but in the end, we'll be all alone and the rest of the world won't care.
Posted by: Sander at July 23, 2004 11:06 AM (3nJmx)
5
Democrats like to complain about how we're not safe because of Bush, even though there has been no terror incidents here since 2001. Even though thousands of terrorists have been killed or imprisoned.
Democrats are the fear mongers.
The Democrats want to get the UN's permission to react to future attacks. The UN can't even pass a tough resolution on the Sudan where thousands of people are being slaughtered on a daily basis. They did 17 resolutions against Saddam and didn't want to pursue any actions because they were making money off the oil for food program.
Kerry doesn't have any convictions. He's an empty suit. Bush has freed millions of people. Kerry told lies about US policy during the Vietnam war, helping millions of South Vietnamese get conquered by the northern Communists.
There is no comparison.
Posted by: James Hudnall at July 30, 2004 08:54 PM (FV8Tp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 15, 2004
COOL
Tony Blair is cool.
"No one lied. No one made up the intelligence. No one inserted things into the dossier against the advice of the intelligence services. Everyone genuinely tried to do their best in good faith for the country in circumstances of acute difficulty. That issue of good faith should now be at an end ... But I have to accept, as the months have passed, it seems increasingly clear that at the time of invasion, Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons ready to deploy ... I have searched my conscience, not in the spirit of obstinacy, but in genuine reconsideration in the light of what we now know, in answer to that question. And my answer would be that the evidence of Saddam's WMD was indeed less certain, less well-founded than was stated at the time. But I cannot go from there to the opposite extreme. On any basis he retained complete strategic intent on WMD and significant capability. The only reason he ever let the inspectors back into Iraq was that he had 180,000 US and British troops on his doorstep ... Had we backed down in respect of Saddam, we would never have taken the stand we needed to take on WMD, never have got progress on Libya ... and we would have left Saddam in charge of Iraq, with every malign intent and capability still in place and every dictator with the same intent everywhere immeasurably emboldened. For any mistakes made, as the report finds, in good faith, I of course take full responsibility. But I cannot honestly say I believe getting rid of Saddam was a mistake at all."
(via Andrew Sullivan)
Posted by: Sarah at
04:57 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Don't you just want to nail that to the forehead of every idiot who clings to the "Bush lied" meme like a tired, desperate swimmer to a seat cushion? I know
I do.
Posted by: CavalierX at July 15, 2004 10:28 PM (sA6XT)
2
I wish I could. Not that it would make any difference, "Bush lied" is just an excuse. If they can't use this one anymore, they'll make up a few more.
Posted by: John at July 16, 2004 12:58 AM (+Ysxp)
3
Compare Blair's statement:
"For any mistakes made, as the report finds, in good faith, I of course take full responsibility."
with Bush's statement:
"I hope -- I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one."
One is saying "the buck stops here," the other is all but saying "What buck?"
If and when Bush stops acting as if he has an infallibility streak that makes "ex cathedra" look tame, then I'll start giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: Can't win at July 16, 2004 06:56 PM (aQOKC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 14, 2004
EDITOR
A 12-yr-old girl wrote a
letter to the editor urging Americans to stand behind the President. She said that she doesn't agree with everything he's done, but he's our elected leader and we should give him the respect he's due and try to put ourselves in his shoes.
Smart kid.
Someone today decided to respond to the girl's letter (scroll to the second entry), beating the dead horse of Not Elected once again. This letter concludes with an absolutely ludacrous paragraph:
For the soldiers who are being shot at in Iraq, for freedom-loving citizens who see our country being turned into a police state, and for the 99 percent of us who haven’t benefited from Bush’s “tax relief” for billionaires, the best remedy is to relieve him of that stress, and his duties, on Nov. 2.
You go, man! Tell that 12 year old!
My husband's best friend said the other day that he's pretty much given up even reading the Stars and Stripes because of all the negative letters to the editor. That's a real shame.
Posted by: Sarah at
11:07 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Why does Stars and Stripes hate America?
Posted by: curveball at July 14, 2004 05:07 PM (/qocr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 10, 2004
WONDER
Sometimes I wonder how I would be voting if there weren't a war on. I much prefer President Bush's personality to John Kerry's, but if 9/11 had never happened, might I vote differently? I have sometimes wondered about that hypothetical, until I read the
MSNBC Bush vs. Kerry At a Glance. I have nothing on this list in common with John Kerry.
MORE TO GROK:
Forty Reasons to Vote for George Bush
Posted by: Sarah at
03:37 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.
1
ok lets start with the economy, you make more than 200k pwe annum??........didn't think so. Health care, well being a dependent spouse you currenly have no worries, but imagine your self in the private sector you like the picture under this administration?? Moving on to energy and environment you think more drilling, and wastefulness is preferable to CONSERVATION of both fuel and the environment?? As to foriegn policy it is obvious you want to impose American hegemony on the world, but do you honestly think diplomacy is entirely useless?? Post war Iraq...see above comments. Trade: I take it you prefer "free" trade where we try to compete with nationally subsidized companies as opposed to "fair" trade. And the last item on thiat list Israel and the Palestinians, I guess you think Isreal has had it 100% correct since 1948, and that all Arabs are "little broen" people undeserving of consideration as being human beings???? Seriously Sarah the reactionary amongst us are the reason we can not even beging to discuss any differences with one another. I wish you could blow off the far right as easily as I can ignore the radical liberals. Seems to me that neither extreme wants true debate and discussion on these issues. I suppose you think republicans like Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chaffee and Olympia Snowe are too liberal too.
Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at July 10, 2004 04:08 PM (4pVZJ)
2
And I suppose you think you know everything. Idiot. At least proofread--you might look like less of one. And "far right"? Seriously. A real far-righter wouldn't give millions of illegal immigrants amnesty. A lot of that "far right" crap is just more political hullabaloo. Want to know why he was so popular as Texas governor? Because he sought to work with both sides...and was largely successful.
I seriously hope you're not voting for Kerry. For instance, I'm all for conservation myself, but not utter limitation to the detriment of people in general (oh, and then they whine about high prices), which is what many on the left do.
Also, my family works in Muslim countries often, and, while I have many friends among them, I can tell you that many of them are bigoted in a way that would never be "tolerated" in this country. No Israel isn't 100% right--maybe 70%. Heh.
And Sarah, *please* don't tell me that personality is one of the first factors in making your decisions. Lincoln and others would have never gotten into office had personality been as large a factor as it is now.
Posted by: Jeremiah at July 10, 2004 11:22 PM (0FAew)
3
No, I wouldn't vote based on personality. (I actually didn't like President Bush's personality in the last election, but I've grown to admire and respect him.)
I really do agree with more of President Bush's ideas and plans than Kerry's. But I also
trust President Bush more (ha, that'll make some bush-lied people cringe). If President Bush says he's going to do something, then I believe him. On the other hand, I can't understand this at all:
[Kerry] says he can halve the record half-trillion dollar budget by the end of one four-year term, even while spending $72 billion a year to extend health care to 27 million of the 40-plus million uninsured. His campaign has provided no details.
He never seems to have any details. Free college education for people who volunteer...then two weeks later, buried at the bottom of another article, we see that Kerry has backed down because it's just not feasible. I never know what he stands for, except that he represents the anyone-but-Bush folks.
Posted by: Sarah at July 11, 2004 01:45 AM (RHjpX)
4
Bush doesn't believe in free trade at all. His administration imposed steal tariffs, and now they are working on imposing tariffs on Shrimp. This time they are using the crazy excuse that communist countries are more efficient, and so the US can't compete with them.
The other thing is that Bush has let federal spending get out of control. Although, I suppose that is just the consequence of one party controlling the presidency, and congress. Don't you think he should be doing more to keep spending under control?
Posted by: g at July 11, 2004 06:34 PM (MWUaf)
5
Yes, I think spending is out of control. But I don't believe it would be better under John Kerry. "His campaign has provided no details."
Posted by: Sarah at July 12, 2004 05:44 AM (1E/0r)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 06, 2004
BIRTHDAY
Happy Birthday, President Bush!
Posted by: Sarah at
09:07 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 6 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You know, I can't help but wonder if Kerry didn't schedule his announcement for this day on purpose.
Posted by: Jeremiah at July 06, 2004 02:41 PM (0FAew)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 09, 2004
MOURNING
I just found out that I work in one of the non-essential Federal offices covered under
President Bush's memo for the National Day of Mourning in honor of President Reagan. That means I get Friday off of work. To be honest, I feel rather guilty about enjoying a vacation day a week after a President died. I feel like I should find something meaningful to do Friday to show my respect instead of just hanging around the house and knitting. I'll have to come up with something fitting.
Posted by: Sarah at
06:53 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I've been ordered to attend services at the chapel with 18 pews.
Posted by: Mike at June 09, 2004 10:33 AM (cFRpq)
2
You could always knit something patriotic.
Hell, you could just do whatever makes you happy.
Don't you think Reagan would have approved of that?
Posted by: Sigivald at June 09, 2004 04:21 PM (4JnZM)
3
I agree with Sigivald -- President Reagan would have wanted you to enjoy your free time and appreciate your liberty to do as you please.
Posted by: david at June 10, 2004 10:22 AM (1+76a)
4
Write your husband a letter... perhaps include a postcard or two if he has a buddy who doesn't get much mail.
Me.. the state considers me expen..err essential
Posted by: Lconley at June 11, 2004 06:11 PM (2cE9S)
5
I hope you used your time constructively . . . maybe you could have read a book on statistics.
Posted by: Tim at June 13, 2004 01:25 PM (7xctT)
6
Do you know anyone with hostages? You could trade arms for the hostages. Or perhaps you could lay a wreath on the grave of a dead Nazi.
Posted by: Dan at June 13, 2004 03:11 PM (9ovRf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 06, 2004
REAGAN
My husband's phone call woke me up this morning at 0600, and he told me that President Reagan had died while I was asleep. The fact is I am too young to appreciate President Reagan. I was twelve when he left office, which is far too immature to understand the impact of a president. However, I will spend some time to day getting to know him -- too little, too late -- through the different posts over at
Right Wing News today.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:53 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.
June 03, 2004
LIES
The worst name President Bush gets called is Hitler. The second worst is Liar. I started thinking last night about how the many people who hate Bush often hate him because they say he's a liar. He lied about WMDs. He lied about his military record. He lied about the plastic turkey. He lies.
I find this odd because some of the most vocal people on the Left shouldn't call that kettle black. It has been shown many times that Michael Moore's movies and books are full of lies and misleading information. The singer Moby has advocated lying in order to trick people into voting Democrat, and the good folks at Democratic Underground took it one step further (one example: falsely report Republicans in your area for tax fraud). And recently Howell Raines offered John Kerry some advice for winning the election: lie.
What does this mean in terms of campaign message? It means that he must appeal to the same emotions that attract voters to Republicans - ie greed and the desire to fix the crap-shoot in their favour. That means that instead of talking about "fixing" social security, you talk about building a retirement system that makes middle-class voters believe they will be semi-rich someday. As matters now stand, Kerry has assured the DLC, "I am not a redistributionist Democrat."
That's actually a good start. Using that promise as disinformation, he must now figure out a creative way to become a redistributionist Democrat. As a corporation-bashing populist, I'd like to think he could do that by promising to make every person's retirement as secure as Cheney's investment in Halliburton. But that won't sell with the sun-belt suburbanites. Not being a trained economist like, say, Arthur Laffer, I can't figure out the exact legerdemain that Kerry ought to endorse. But greed will make folks vote for Democrats if it's properly packaged, just as it now makes them vote Republican, and in terms of the kind of voters Kerry must win away from Bush, I think the pot-of-gold retirement strategy is a way to work. Forget a chicken in every pot. It's time for a Winnebago in every driveway.
I just find it amusing that the thing many claim to hate most about President Bush is the thing they advocate when it suits their agenda.
Posted by: Sarah at
09:35 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 387 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Doesn't it seem a bit strange to judge the President by the standard of Michael Moore, Moby [!] and anonymous posters on an Internet Bulletin Board?
Posted by: Groucho at June 03, 2004 12:21 PM (ud6+r)
2
Not when what they are advising you to do is get rid of the President. If Moby were lying about his record sales, then it would be false to equate the two and say "both left and right lie". But these people are basically saying, "We need to lie to get rid of this liar." That's why I think this particular point is valid.
Posted by: Sarah at June 03, 2004 12:33 PM (/RJHc)
3
They keep saying Bush lied because it's exactly what they would do if they were in Bush's shoes. So far as I know none of the "lies" Bush is accused of, have been proven. And many more lies have been told about Bush to cover up this little fact.
Oddly enough Bush is the first politician I've ever seen where I believe he means what he says. I don't always "like" what he says (the medicare bill still makes me cringe) but he says he's going to do something and he does it! The most amazing thing I've ever seen in a politician.
I'm pretty sure this scares the bejesus out of the lefties. They are so used to hearing people say things. Then it never comes to pass because the person who said it never had any intention of following through. That's why they are so comfortable with the European governments...
Posted by: Teresa at June 04, 2004 04:26 PM (nAfYo)
4
Teresa,
"They keep saying Bush lied because it's exactly what they would do if they were in Bush's shoes."
As I've been saying, Leftists are projectionists. They cannot imagine any other form of behavior but their own. They love dictators. So Bush must be a dictator too. But unlike Castro et al., he's on the Dark Side. Hence no free passes for him.
Posted by: Amritas at June 05, 2004 07:55 AM (LtgMS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
REMARKS
The two best paragraphs in
the President's remarks at the USAF Academy:
For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability, and much oppression. So I have changed this policy. In the short-term, we will work with every government in the Middle East dedicated to destroying the terrorist networks. In the longer-term, we will expect a higher standard of reform and democracy from our friends in the region. (Applause.) Democracy and reform will make those nations stronger and more stable, and make the world more secure by undermining terrorism at it source. Democratic institutions in the Middle East will not grow overnight; in America, they grew over generations. Yet the nations of the Middle East will find, as we have found, the only path to true progress is the path of freedom and justice and democracy. (Applause.)
And later:
As we fight the war on terror in Iraq and on other fronts, we must keep in mind the nature of the enemy. No act of America explains terrorist violence, and no concession of America could appease it. The terrorists who attacked our country on September the 11th, 2001 were not protesting our policies. They were protesting our existence. Some say that by fighting the terrorists abroad since September the 11th, we only stir up a hornet's nest. But the terrorists who struck that day were stirred up already. (Applause.) If America were not fighting terrorists in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and elsewhere, what would these thousands of killers do, suddenly begin leading productive lives of service and charity? (Laughter.) Would the terrorists who beheaded an American on camera just be quiet, peaceful citizens if America had not liberated Iraq? We are dealing here with killers who have made the death of Americans the calling of their lives. And America has made a decision about these terrorists: Instead of waiting for them to strike again in our midst, we will take this fight to the enemy. (Applause.)
Read the whole speech if you didn't get to see it on TV. It says many of the things we bloggers have been waiting for the President to spell out.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:29 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I think I would have been a little pissy if he'd made that long of a speech at my graduation. BUT, I really wish this message would get out. Bush has had over a year to sell his vision, and I just don't see that he has. Hopefully it won't be too little too late.
Posted by: beth at June 03, 2004 06:55 PM (970C6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
136kb generated in CPU 0.1738, elapsed 0.2769 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.233 seconds, 260 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.