# Swift Boat Liars are Finished



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818634/

The U.S. Navy backs Kerry's record. The Bush campaign's lawyer resigns in disgrace for his connections to the Swift Boat Liars. No factual evidence for any of the claims made by the Swift Boat Liars in their ad. What more do you supporters of these liars need to convince you that you've been had?

Now that this distraction has been exposed, can we please get back to some issues that matter for the future of this country? Anyone else more concerned about lost jobs, the deficit, gas prices, health insurance, prescription prices, the crusade in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and environmental destruction than they are about what happened in the Mekong Delta over 30 years ago?


----------



## pointer99 (Jan 16, 2004)

not to mention.....

gun control
abortion
tax increases
gay marriage
senate absenteeism
failure to support defence programs
a sensitive war on terror
increased social spending

you know ....all the good stuff.

pointer


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I was happy to see the truth finally come out with this swift boat mess. I was confident that the links to the Shrub campaign would come out in time. I saw a news story the other night about how the driving force behind the swift soldier group and the recent book was an old Bush family friend from Texas. Kind of a coincidence that Shrub finally comes out denouncing the negative swift boat ads a few days before his lawyer resigns.

Now let's get back to the issues and decide who is best fit to lead this country.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You will wish we didn't get to the issues because Kerry can't run on his ultra liberal record and expect to win. That's why he decided to hang his campaign on his "War Hero" record. By the way I read the whole link that was provided and found that an attorney resigned from the Bush campaign so that he wouldn't detract from the real issues. I seen no where that he did anything but advise these people which was perfectly legal. How about the moveon.org.? They have spent 60 million bashing Bush. Talk about negative, they compare him to Hitler. Where is the money coming from? I think the guys name is Seros or something like that. A very rich person from where, Hungry you say? And they think they have the right to influence an American election? Did you hear Bush call for an end to the 527 adds, all of them? Of course Kerry didn't want that, he only wanted the Swift Boat people to loose their first amendment rights. Can you say hypocrisy? The sooner we get to the real issues the happier I will be. You want to talk about lost jobs? Technology keeps moving on and as the entire world moves forward some archaic jobs disappear, and new ones begin. Have you noticed how little call there is for alchemists today? Those lost jobs have all been replaced by better jobs. Have you ever noticed how college economics professors laugh about political attitudes about the economy? When it is bad they blame it on the opponent, and when it is good they try take the credit. Many of them say that the president really has little effect on the economy. He can't sign a bill if congress doesn't send it to him.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Big Daddy says


> I was happy to see the truth finally come out with this swift boat mess.


 ..........


> Now let's get back to the issues and decide who is best fit to lead this country.


The last thing your side wants is honesty or to really discuss the issues WHICH IS WHY KERRY HAS MADE HIS PHONEY HERO IN VIETNAM STORY THE CENTER PIECE OF HIS CAMPAIGN HE WOULD HATE TO HAVE HIS 20 YEARS IN THE SENATE DISCUSSED. :eyeroll: 
Well, so much for Kerry's complaint with the Federal Election Commission. Turns out the Clinton-appointed chairman of the FEC is not only supportive of The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, he's also a Republican. He also says it's unlikely the FEC will rule on the Kerry campaign's complaint before November 2nd. Looks like the Swiftees are here to stay. :lol: :lol:

Go back and read that bit where I wrote "Clinton-appointed."

Unbelievably, Bradley Smith, the chairman of the FEC actually believes in free speech. He says "I think it's great we live in a country where 260 average guys can go out and put their point of view out there before the public and influence a major presidential race. I am not one who agrees it is illegitimate for citizens to take a stand on these kind of issues and only the politicians should be able to say what they want about the issues they want to talk about.'' *Not exactly the answer Kerry's people were looking for.* :lol: :beer: 
Freedom of speech...that's what the First Amendment is for. *Too bad Kerry nor his supporters see it that way.* :eyeroll: UNLESS OF- COURCE ITS MOVEON .ORG OR MIKE THE PIG MOORE
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS SENTENCE IN A MAJOR NEWSPAPER?*Certainly you've read many stories over the past months about the television advertisements being run by Moveon.org and The Media Fund*. But have you ever seen this sentence, or anything like it, in any of those stories?

*"Moveon.org, an organization bankrolled by John Kerry supporters ......" *

Now you're reading about the television ads being placed by The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. In reading those stories how many times have you seen this sentence, or something like it:

*"A group of Vietnam veterans bankrolled by George Bush supporters ...."*
Do I really have to say any more? :eyeroll: :******: :******:

*It seems that the only way the media can defend its candidate is to tie any detractors to George Bush. Weak.*

OK ... so I am going to say some more.

There is a story circulating out there that a Bush campaign attorney also advised the Swift Boat Veterans. *The left (including the media) is screaming "gotcha!"* But wait, it turns out this is more of a case of the pot and the kettle. The acknowledgment by attorney Benjamin Ginsberg is being cited as supporting Kerrys complaint that Bush is coordinating with the Swiftees. *But Ginsberg says the group came to him only for advice on how to properly follow the wretched disaster known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation*. There are only so many lawyers that know how it works, and he is one of them.

*Since the media won't tell you about it*, :******: shall we highlight the *extensive ties between Kerry's campaign and the Bush-bashing Moveon.org?* The lawyers for the DNC are doing the same thing. That's right...you have all this outrage on the left over all this supposed "coordination" but the Democrats are doing the exact same thing. * You want a name? * We have a name! *The lawyer's name is Joe Sandler, and he works for both the DNC and Moveon.org.*

Let's recap, shall we?

*The Swiftees go to Benjamin Ginsberg, an acknowledged expert on McCain-Feingold, and asks him for advice on how to abide by the law as they run their ads. * 
The Kerry campaign cites that as proof of collaboration between the Bush campaign and the Swiftees, *and the media jumps right on board*. 
*Joe Sandler works for both the DNC and Moveon.org, and the media ignores it. * :******: :******: 
In neither case is a law or rule being violated. *When the Democrats do it, it's fine. When the Republicans do it, it's evil. * Typical of Democrat hypocrisy and dishonesty


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Bob,

I didn't say that what the Kerry lawyers are doing with Moveon.org is right. Neither side should be offering under-the-table support to these attack groups. It is flat-out wrong and disingenuous.

My disdain for the swift boat folks was the hypocracy of the Bush administration and the fact that W came out against the swift boat media campaign only when it was obvious that the link to his staff was imminent. These are classic Karl Rove tactics.... let some other group do the dirty work while you distance yourself and give the appearance of taking the high road.

Also, I disagree that sticking to the facts is the last thing that Democrats want. Quite to the contrary. I think that the Democrats would welcome open debate on the real issues affecting this country- quality education, affordable health care, civil liberty, the environment, the economy. Bush is unwilling or unable to discuss these domestic policy issues because he has one and only focus- national defense and the war in Iraq.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Watched Nightline last night with the fill in host talking to Ginsberg. He pretty much nailed the host with a straight hard line of answers and counter questions and asked why the news media had not listed the DNC connection and why it was only focusing upon Bush!.

If he starts getting air time which he will as it is the hot story of late, he is going to force the media to look at the DNC connection and it will undermine any support from the pity crowd for Kerry. I have never seen a host so back on his heels when challenging someone. The reason is that he has done nothing illegal or wrong or different than what is going on on the other side of the aisle.

He is very articulate and does not spin his answers so this makes what he says even more credible. This is just the start of the long list of things to come. Swing voters are going to see Kerry for what he is, a liberal voting Sen that continues to promise the moon.

Security is still the number one concern to voters ans so is honesty. In both categories Bush has double digit leads in these area's.

When you consider that the last poll done by Rasmussen on who is more honest 60% of all polled say Bush. 39% say Kerry. Dem's made up 49% of all polled and Rep 46% and others the balance.

The same poll showed Bush attracting 15% of the Dem's and Kerry attracting only 3% of the Rep vote.

Even the LA Times poll which has a higher % of Dem's in the sample show Bush with a lead over Kerry even though it is within the margin of error.

Kerry wants to keep the issue of the war on the front burner to avoid talking about his past Sen record. WIth 60+ days to election the focus will shift to that. Bush will have the stage next week with people being done with vacations and kids in school. This means TV viewership rises and people start paying attention.

People start listening and with 25% of polled voters supporting Kerry saying they could still change their mind and only 3 % of those for Bush all of those would need to shift to Kerry. It has never happened and I doubt it will this year.

The situation in Iraq is getting better and an example of that is the Peace caravan taking place today to Najaf. The plane crashes in Russia have all the fingerprints of terror attacks to influence the election. In two polls done by Zogby and The Citizens for Responsible Government both showed that an attack before the elections by terrorists would cause people to stay the course with Bush.

The reason is that those polled overwhelming believe that the attracts would be designed to get Bush out of office because they fear him. This paints Kerry as the weaker of the candidates on terror. So why should we as voters reward there actions.

Spin all the news reports any way you want but polls are a fair indicator of the pulse of the nation when looking at what motivates voters. Almost of the important indicator are pointing to Bush and have for a long time.

I may be wrong on this but I highly doubt it. My gut is that Bush wins by 5% nation wide with the Socialist regions of the US going to Kerry and the rest of the nation going for Bush. And the reasons will not be because of either candidates military record. It will be on the record of actions and the belief of how is telling the truth. When only 61% of all voters thinking you are not honest your message and promises will not sway anyone to believe you.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

This interesting fact from James Taranto's column of yesterday:

*In April of 1971 John Kerry gave the following testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "I called the media .... I said 'If I take some crippled veterans down to the White House and we chain ourselves to the gates, will we get coverage?' 'O, yes, we'll cover that.'"*
How low will Kerry stoop???? :eyeroll:

Then, on August 25, 2004, John Kerry sends Max Cleland, a veteran who lost three limbs in Vietnam to accost George Bush at the gates of his Crawford ranch.

It was a sad and pathetic spectacle, especially for people like myself who have known and loved Max Cleland for so many years. Sadly, former Georgia Senator Max Cleland is now serving in a new role as John Kerry's public relations prostitute Yesterday he went to President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas to deliver a letter. That's right...Max went right up to the gate to deliver a letter to George Bush asking him to specifically condemn the Swift Vets attacks on Kerry. The letter said "you owe a special duty" to condemn the attacks. *Interestingly John Kerry apparently owes no special duty to tell Moveon.org to stop the 'AWOL' attacks on George Bush's military service. But why argue the fine points of media bias?[/b]

Anyway, so there it was....poor Max Cleland, playing up the shock value of his disability by visiting the president's home in Texas. How sad. Doesn't Cleland realize why he was picked for the job? Why for instance did Kerry not send John Edwards? Right...he's not a Vietnam Vet.  Well then...how about some other Democrat that was in the military...maybe Tom Harkin? :eyeroll: Oh that right Like Kerry he lied about his service in Nam Nope...of course the Kerry campaign sent Max Cleland...they used him...because of his status as a triple amputee. Just go back to Kerry's statement to the Senate in 1971! They hope that the image of Cleland in his wheel chair on the news will pull at people's heart strings and make them dislike that mean, evil George Bush. Talk about having no pride.God its sickening..what do you suppose Max is after?

Maybe Kerry has promised him a job in a potential Kerry administration. Maybe Max has nothing better to do. Maybe it's just the result of Cleland's intense bitterness over losing his U.S. Senate seat in 2000. Cleland says that his patriotism was challenged in that election. I was here ... I was in the middle of it ... and that's not the case. The voters of Georgia were disgusted. They didn't like the way Max Cleland sold his very soul to Tom Daschle and the government employee unions, and they made their feeling known at the polls. :eyeroll:

Either way, it's a shame. By the way, Cleland wanted to deliver the letter to an officer, but neither the Secret Service nor the state troopers would take it. A Texas state official and Vietnam veteran Jerry Patterson said he would accept the letter and offered a pro-Bush letter, but Max said he would just mail it in.

Kind of like he did when he was in the Senate.

Can this get any more absurd? While John Kerry is sending surrogates to the Western White House to demand denunciations of the Swift Boat veterans, supporters stand behind him at a visit to a union shop in Philadelphia holding bumper stickers that read "George Bush, AWOL, 1972-1973."*


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I saw the Nightline interview last night too. Ginsberg's position seemed to be that what he did is OK since the Kerry camp is doing it too. This is similar to the usual response from Bush supports when somebody alleges that he was less than honest for his motives in Iraq. "Well, Clinton lied about getting hummer in the White House."

Don't people understand? Just because somebody else is doing it doesn't make it right. Even my 5-year-old has learned that. NEITHER side should be using underhanded tactics to run smear ads through a third pary. NEITHER side should allow dishonesty simply because their opponent was dishonest at one time or another.

I agree with Ron that this election will be won by 5% and that military records will be irrelevant. However, people won't base their vote on who they think is most honest. They'll base their vote simply on assessing whether or not they are better off now then the day Bush took office. They'll base their vote on whether or not they are confident Bush will win this War on Terror(ism) and whether the continued losses of life are worth it. They'll base their vote on whether or not they are confident that Bush really knows what he is doing, or whether he is continuing to get us into a hole that will take generations to get out of. They'll base their vote on whether they still think their children will have a better life than his or her parents. They'll base their vote on whether they want to continue to live in an environment of civil liberty infringement and false patriotism, or whether people truly do have certiain inalienable rights and the right (no, obligation) to voice their opinion.

If people base their vote in the manner described above, Bush is doomed. However, if Bush convinces enough poorly-informed, scared, gun-toting citizens that the alternative to him is terrorists on the streets or liberals knocking on their doors to take their guns, he will win. Bush will win only if he continues to base his campaign and administration on fear... fear of terrorists and fear of gun-controlling, atheist liberals.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

You ever notice how when you have aliberal by the balls on some issue he starts ranting about athiests or racists or some other ridiculous and unrelated BS to distract the issue, Geez Big Daddy I thought you could do better :eyeroll: 
The left has been whining about the supposed 'coordination' between the Swift Vets and the Bush campaign. They held up as proof the fact that Bush campaign attorney Benjamin Ginsberg also advised the Swiftees. They say that's illegal coordination under the rules. But it's not. *As a matter of fact, the Democrats do the exact same thing. One of the DNC's lawyers also advises Moveon.org. *
So even though he wasn't asked to do so, attorney Benjamin Ginsberg decided to quit the Bush campaign yesterday. He said he doesn't want to be a distraction and so on. *Of course, this wasn't enough for the hypocritical Kerry campaign...who said that it doesn't end the extensive web of connections between the president and the Swift Vets. * A bald faced lie!!!

Now ... let's address the media role in this. The media will eagerly report the Kerry claims that the Bush campaign is behind the Swift Boat Veterans. There is no proof .. but the media will repeat the charge endlessly. :eyeroll:

The Bush campaign, though, *has released a list of the top 10 connections between John Kerry and the 527s*, including: Joe Sandler, who is general counsel to the DNC, while also serving as legal counsel to Moveon.org and Moving America Forward. Also, a Moveon.org staffer recently joined the Kerry campaign as director of online communications and organizing. How's that for extensive connections? There are more, but you get the idea.

These are all extensive connections between the Kerry campaign and Moveon.org, the same group that is smearing President Bush by running ads that lie about his military record in the Texas Air National Guard. *These are proven lies, unlike many of the Swift Vets accusations, which Kerry hasn't even responded to.*

Where is the media on this? As usual, doing their best to elect Kerry. :eyeroll:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

BD my post was based upon the results of polls done since 1960 on candidates that have won the election.

Kennedy polled higher in honesty than Nixon Same about Nixon and McGovern, Carter Ford, Reagan Carter, Bush Dukias, Clinton Bush, coupled with the likability factor no candidate that was leading n both category has lost.

People that are undecided are the ones I am talking about since both candidates have the majority of the base support. However the Dem's themselves do not view Kerry as being more honest than Bush. See a lot of them that do believe Bush will not vote for him because of other issues such as the war,abortion etc.

They become a non factor in this debate. Just like the people that do not want Kerry in for his stand on taxes, guns,etc.

The middle ground is where these points hit home and resonate. Many voters decide on who to vote for based on who they would like to sit down with for a cup of coffee. Who would you believe would really like to do this with you is another example.

Both Kerry or Bush would do this for PR, however a higher % of undecided believe GW would do it because he is sincere about wanting to meet them. Thus lies the Achilles Heel of Kerry.

Few indedpendants have the ABB mentailty that the left do. I guess that is why they are independants!


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> You ever notice how when you have aliberal by the balls on some issue he starts ranting about athiests or racists or some other ridiculous and unrelated BS to distract the issue, Geez Big Daddy I thought you could do better


Bob,

I did not bring the atheism comment to the mix to distract the issue. Religion continues to be brought into the election equation by the Bush administration, not by the libs. Why else is Bush pushing the constitutional amendment against gay marriage? It doesn't have a chance (or should I say, "prayer") of passing, but it rings true to those members of the religious right that spend all day watching the 700 Club.

If anything, religion has been used by the Republicans to distract voters from the real issues relating to domestic policy and the unofficial holy war now being raged in the Middle East.

I would like us to get back to the real, substantive issues that will decide this election. Is our current president best fit to lead this country? Has he made prudent use of our military forces? Will he make prudent use of our military if he is re-elected? Does he have any sort of exit strategy to this War on Terror(ism)? Has he remained focused on finding those responsible for 9/11? Does he have an adequate balance of resources focused on foreign and domestic policy? For me, the answer to all of these questions is, "No".


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"Did you hear Bush call for an end to the 527 adds, all of them?"

ripper of an idea, call them all off after he had gotten all his licks in, and now Kerry was comming back with a counter-attack...


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

BigDaddy said:


> > You ever notice how when you have aliberal by the balls on some issue he starts ranting about athiests or racists or some other ridiculous and unrelated BS to distract the issue, Geez Big Daddy I thought you could do better
> 
> 
> It doesn't have a chance (or should I say, "prayer") of passing, but it rings true to those members of the religious right that spend all day watching the 700 Club.


Just to let you know, this comment hit my '******-off' button. I do not spend "all day watching the 700 club" and "prayer" is an issue for me. Pres. Bush has always been honest about his beliefs, SKerry tried to fit in and it blew up in his face. These are facts. Use facts, they are useful things.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Just one question for you libs.

What exactly has Kerry done in the 15 years as a senator that he can hang his hat on??
This is a fair question, how has he advanced in any way the betterment of our country or more specific your world?
Please enlighten us!! :roll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

SFC Rude

I guess some people are under the false impression that it is popular to bash religious people, Christians in particular. Also, if you have not noticed Kerry is trying to be Mr. "God Bless America" too. Some of these people you can make a point with some you can't. Some are truly looking for answers, and others are simply looking to do damage to Bush. Watch their language. In one post some where they refer to Bush as Shrub. They don't respect him, or you, or me. Many people I know in church will be voting for Kerry I am sure, so why do they often refer to Christians and radical right in the same breath. They profess to be the people of tolerance, but truth be known they only have tolerance for you if you believe everything they tell you. Nation polls for who do you trust is Bush 60% Kerry 39%. From the mainstream media on TV tonight. How do you vote for someone you don't trust.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The single biggest issue in sizing up a potential president is integrity. In the thread about another lie about NAM there is yet another example of his continous lie after lie and luckily Kerry has documented them himself in his own diary. I just can't believe anyone would vote for someone they know will lie to them at the drop of a hat. Now I'm sure the response from some of the politically ignorant will be some wisecrack about Bush not serving, or Bush lied about Irag (both of which are in and of themselves are not true statements) but I want to here from some of the resonable libs on the site that can make a good and reasoned argument about various issues like Big Daddy. *I want to here how you can support a liar, I want to know what Kerry has that will make you ignore the lying, the lack of accomplishment in the Senate and the obvious lack of character and vote for him anyway.* Don't talk about Bush, *tell me what Kerry has that deserves your vote.* At this point in history this country needs steady leadership, not a guy like Kerry that will change direction depending on who he is talking to, what makes you think he is your man. 
Thanks


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> I want to here how you can support a liar, I want to know what Kerry has that will make you ignore the lying, the lack of accomplishment in the Senate and the obvious lack of character and vote for him anyway. Don't talk about Bush, tell me what Kerry has that deserves your vote. At this point in history this country needs steady leadership, not a guy like Kerry that will change direction depending on who he is talking to, what makes you think he is your man.


OK Bob,

Here is my response to the request above, and you are going to love it: Kerry is the lesser of two evils, plain and simple.

John Kerry has done little in his years with the Senate. In fact, it is difficult to compile a list of major bills that he sponsored. This sounds really simplistic, but my decision to vote for Kerry can be summed up in the simple words, "Not Bush".

I simply do not respect George W. Bush and the job that he has done as president of the United States. Can Kerry do a better job? I really don't know. In fact, I doubt it. However, I do know that he can't possibly do any worse.

I find it an absolute atrocity and insult to my intelligence that these two schmucks are the two best candidates that either party can present for consideration to the most important elected post in the world. That being said, I can overlook Kerrys lies and poor track record as a senator simply because he is an alternative to this pseudo-cowboy from Texas. How's that for an answer?

Since I answered your question, I would like you to answer mine. Let's look back to 4 years ago or so. How would you have answered a similar question on George Bush then? What did George W. Bush accomplish as governor of Texas to make you think that he could be leader of the United States? Would the answer have been, "Not Gore"?


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

BigDaddy said:


> > I want to here how you can support a liar, I want to know what Kerry has that will make you ignore the lying, the lack of accomplishment in the Senate and the obvious lack of character and vote for him anyway. Don't talk about Bush, tell me what Kerry has that deserves your vote. At this point in history this country needs steady leadership, not a guy like Kerry that will change direction depending on who he is talking to, what makes you think he is your man.
> 
> 
> In fact, I doubt it. However, I do know that he can't possibly do any worse.


Somebody please help me. Am I just a complete idiot? You said you doubt he could do better. Plainsman, Bobm help me understand this. Because of people like this we had the last idiot in the seat!


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Bobm said:


> I just can't believe anyone would vote for someone they know will lie to them at the drop of a hat.


Bobm,

Remember, "I did not have sexual relations with Miss Lewinsky."? The fine people in America loved him for being a liar and voted him in again. It is truely a sick, misguided world we live in. Isn't it BigDaddy?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

BD do you look at issues and events in judging what a person has done or not done?

This post is not meant to badger you, but think about it this way. You know what you have with Bush. No new gun legislation, a lower tax rate for all those paying taxes. funding for CRP, WPR funding at levels never had before. Respect and admiration by most of those in the Armed forces of the US. This one is huge during the time we live in. I have talked to a lot of former military people concerning this. Tuesday for example a retired Army Col. He served under Ford,Carter,Reagan,Bush,Clinton and Bush. He talked about the moral of the servicemen in two area's. The first in getting what they need to do the job given them, and the need for respect for the Commander in Chief.

Under Clinton and Carter he said both of these Pres where held in contempt by military personal. Carter for his micro management, Clinton for his actions in avoiding serving and his lack of surrogates around him that understood the troops and equipment.

Health has forced his retirement so he is not long out. When he left his take was that the troops are fearful of Kerry because of his past actions and his statements on Iraq. They have basically formed an opinion of him by his past actions.

So think about the overall when you are taking the course of ABB. Think about those serving and how important it is for them to have CIC they respect!


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Ron,

Absolutely do I look at issues when I choose a candidate. In fact, I look a candidates position on issues as the primary means of making my choice much more than a person's track record as a governor or a member of Congress. Kerry's positions on issues match much more to my views than the positions of Bush.

You asked about positions on issues framed in the context of the events of a given time period. If I read your post correctly, you stressed the need for military support of the president based on the current state of affairs in the world and the War on Terror(ism). This is a circular argument. Bush's use of the military is exactly why I DON'T respect him.

I understand the need to support our troops and I understand the need for the troops to respect the Commander in Chief. However, Bush created this mess by expanding his War on Terrorism to the War on Terror. I will not go into the rationale for the War in Iraq since Bob and I have gone round and round numerous times, and neither of us has convinced the other. Bush's use of the military in Iraq, his failure to focus our efforts on punishing those for 9/11, and his willingness (no, eagerness) to alienate our former allies has created a hostile world.

In other words, Bush has created a situation which has put a large number of our military in harm's way. Now people say that we need to support a candidate that has the support of the military because they are in harm's way. This is a circular argument that makes no sense.

Finally, folks are going to immediately offer a rebuttal that Al Qaida created this mess, not Bush. This is not true. Al Qaida needs to be punished for the events on 9/11. There is no doubt about that. I'll stand in line to do so. A War on Terrorism is completely justifed, and I doubt that any rational country in world would disagree with that. Because the war in Afghanistan was based on their link to 9/11 and sheltering of Bin Laden, it was completely justified.

However, the war in Iraq wasn't and isn't about a War on Terrorism, it's about a War on Terror. There is no link to the events on 9/11. That's why so many allies do not support it, that's why I don't support it, and that's why I don't support Bush.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Big Daddy you are correct we have gone round and round about the war in Iraq and its link to terrorism and its relationship with the stability and long term democratization of the middle east. I now realize talking to you about this is a waste of time and no amount of fact will change your opinion. Why, because facts don't matter to you in the same way that you have admittted above you don't care what the facts are about Kerry. You aren't interested in the truth.....and your post above is full of lies about Iraq as usaul.
And most of our allies do support it in fact the only ones that don't are dishonest crooks( french, Germans, Russians, and the UN oil for food scandle) that had financial interests in keeping the Iraqi people prisoners to a madman. Big Daddy you are in good company with them they put their political and financial interests ahead of the good of the world, you put you political partisanship in front of the good of the country, there are good honest democrats KERRY ISN'T one of them, he is a liar.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> However, the war in Iraq wasn't and isn't about a War on Terrorism, it's about a War on Terror. There is no link to the events on 9/11. That's why so many allies do not support it, that's why I don't support it, and that's why I don't support Bush.


This is a statement of half truths, its a dishonest position on this issue, period. If you were stupid about these issues I would think otherwise but I unfortunately know you to not be stupid and thus have to take you at what you write. 
You have unfairly maligned Bush repeatedly while admitting that Kerrys lying is something you will "overlook". Kerry is asking for the job of commander in Chief after lying about the integrity of soldiers in Nam and his own service record, his lies have come home to roost, vets don't like him or Jane Fonda for this reason. With a country evenly divided politically how do you explain a roughly 275 to 17 ratio of his fellow soldiers not supporting him surely amny of those 275 are Dems


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> However, the war in Iraq wasn't and isn't about a War on Terrorism, it's about a War on Terror. There is no link to the events on 9/11. That's why so many allies do not support it, that's why I don't support it, and that's why I don't support Bush.


Bob,
There is nothing untruthful about the statement above. People have found evidence that Saddam gave financial assistance to Al Qaida in the past, but nobody has found evidence that Saddam had any other relationship to the events on 9/11. Saddam was ousted because he was a bad dude and because some viewed him as a threat to the U.S. (yes, I have read the quotes from both Dems and Reps from before 9/11). The Bush administration has stated repeatedly and empatically that there is no link between Saddam and 9/11. You know this. I simply don't agree with preemptive wars, but you know this too. Take a deep breath and re-read this thread.

If you want to keep debating this, feel free to tell me why the statement above is dishonest. However, we know where it will end.

If you want to question my integrity, that's your right. However, your inability to see the truth in this is either because you have access to information that the rest of us (and the White House) don't or because you have decided to believe what you want to believe. Or, to look at it another way, your ability to find lies in my statement says something about your views and inability to look at things objectively.

Now go find something to cut and paste to refute me.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Brother, we are both wasting our time, I actually like you, I just can't understand your view on this issue (I was shocked at your acceptance of a proven liar as a presidential candidate, it just didn't seem like something you would feel alright about) . Go hunting and forget about it, life is too short for us to go round and round. I don't like the incivility these feelings lead to, from me or you. Neither one of us is going to ever convince the other. One of us is crazy, we will have to see how things shake out in Iraq and the middle east. After they shake out we can then decide which of us that is, and finish this discussion at a later date.
Ever wonder how people can have so many things in common and be so far apart on another issue?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Big Daddy, I gave it some thought and decided that even if you will never accept it I have to respond to your claims and point out what I think the flaws are in your thinking, for the benefit of the others reading this.
*1)*Your statement


> People have found evidence that Saddam gave financial assistance to Al Qaida in the past, but nobody has found evidence that Saddam had any other relationship to the events on 9/11.


While Saddam may not, (I say "may" because we don't really know what he was involved in. Our intell in the Middle east is very weak. Thanks to guys like Kerry) We do know for a fact that Saddam was helping Al Quaida with both money and a hiding place. We are fighting Al Quaida and the policy of preemption (whether you agree with it is immaterial) means that we are going to attack any states that give aid to terroists especially Al Quaida. To do anything else would be a big mistake because the Muslims only respect strength. So the relationship to 9/11 is straightforward if you help the group that did 9/11 we will go after you, Iran and Syria must change or be next.
*2)*


> That's why so many allies do not support it,


Thats simply not true four of our so called Allies didn't support it 
a) France- corrupt bastards, they had proven with Saddam illegal financial relationships selling him arms among other things.
b) Germany - ditto
c) Russia- oil deals, arms deals ect. all illegal and against the socalled UN embargo
d) Luxemberg ( I think, who cares what they think)
*At least 35 other countries supported this action *so you and these three crooked countries you choose to admire are in the minority.
*3)[*quote]


> I simply don't agree with preemptive wars, but you know this too. Take a deep breath and re-read this thread.


 [/quote]
I did ( take a deep breath that is :lol: ) Your adherence to this no pre-emption model of war is wrong headed for the following reason. Our previous doctrine of waiting until we are attacked before we do anything is a 20th century model, *it will not work any more.* It was designed to fight nations with borders and clearly defined soldiers not shadowy international terrorist groups and the rogue nations that choose to support them. Whether Bush or Kerry wins the election will not change this. They will be faced with continued threat of some group of terrorists getting aid from some Islamic facist regime, Iran principally. Irans help will include nuclear weapons if we allow them to develop them, We as a country have to have the National will to instill the fear in these goverments that we will destroy them if they do this and they have to have no doubt and believe we will do so independent of world opinion ( world opinion what a joke, most of the world is with us). *Preemption is the model of the future in any terroist related dispute I know you politically correct liberals don't like it but thats the only thing that will work. From 9/11 on any president that allows a group of terrorists to thrive is shirking his duty to protect this nation, I'm not willing to wait until after they kill millions ( even hundreds) in this county*. That fact is that there are a lot of countries that resent our success and the power that our superior form of govenment has given this country, they are not really our allies, France is the biggest culprit. Screw what the French think they are really cowards that want to hide their heads in the sand and hope the bully Islamist crackpots will go away, at least france is consistant they wimped out with Hitler also. If I was you I would pick better company. We have been carrying France and Germanies water too long, let them defend themselves.... 
*4)[*quote]


> Or, to look at it another way, your ability to find lies in my statement says something about your views and inability to look at things objectively.[/


quote] *I found them* and your ability to look at things objectively is nothing to brag about, your the one that freely claims you willing to let Kerry who you admit lied about his service record and you will overlook that due to your partisanship( anyone but Bush :eyeroll: ). If you want our soldiers led by a Commander in Chief that has publicly lied about our soldiers and dishonored them and lied about his service record I guess its your right to do so. Bush is very popular among the Military, they are a better judge than you. And when you get unfiltered accounts from Iraq the soldiers know they are doing a good thing. 
*5)[*quote]


> Now go find something to cut and paste to refute me.


[/quote] I'll do that and continue to do just that everyday, everytime I come across anything that supports my beliefs and is pertinent to the current events of the day. Thank God for the internet, its a huge source of information and it and talk radio are the only two outlets for conservative thought that the Liberal " so-called Mainstream" media cannot control. My goal here on this web site is to do my little part to counter that corrupt liberal medias influence, and the liberals on this site that were getting away with spewing their half truths unchallenged. hopefully get the few folks that don't bother to research and read this political stuff to at least be aware of the other sides viewpoint, a view point ABC CBS and NBC never air without distortion.
The only criteria I apply to what I cut and paste is that I agree with it, it comes from a reliable source, and that it be the truth. You remember the truth don't you, its that thing, the opposite of the lies you stated your willing to "OVERLOOK" from your pal Kerry. Libs ( not all Dems some are conservative) hate the truth it just ruins the hell out of your arguments. 
*6)* Lastly as moderator of this forum I'm going to ask all of us politely to not post any threats. Its over the line and those are Chris's rules he doesn't want it on his website and out of respect for Chris we all need to abide by his rules. You can call me a dirty rotten so and so and think anything you want, but we can't be threatening each other on his site. I'm sorry what I said made you so mad and I'll do my best to clean up my own act as well, passions run high in these discussions and I'm just as guilty as anyone, I try not to edit any posts from anyone that is consitantly making good arguments but threats will not be allowed and and I mean all of us, myself included. Thanks


----------



## Southwest Fisher (May 14, 2004)

Damn it, Bob, you just confuse the sh** outta me with your responses. On one hand you post that maybe you and BD need to just agree to disagree, and in another you post you go on about "having a liberal by his balls." Kind of a Jekyl and Hyde thing there, ya know? Some of your responses are arrogant and condescending, the next are thoughtful and friendly as hell. Course, I suppose the same can be said about some of my posts, but I'm still betting on schizophrenia. Do what I do, and tell the voices to shut up!

Also, I did like BD's "not Bush" response, and his tie-in w/ conservatives and the '00 election. If you guys would've just kept McCain, us Dems would be SOL this year. But anyway, what is your response to that correlation between the last two elections?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

First I am thoughtful and friendly, I just get fired up and run my mouth too much once in a while. I put on my pants one leg at a time just like everyone else. One thing you guys forget to do is realize that one can be passionate about a subject and vehemently disagree with the other guy without hate. I love America and I will continue to make the argumant for Americas good regardless of party, this time the Republicans have the right man. McCain is not a conservative and I especially resent the McCain Fiengold act, its really just an attempt to protect incumbent politicians and restrict yours and my free speech. 
Kerry is an elitest liar, and his lies about my fellow soldiers put him in the exact same mold as his buddy Jane Fonda.....
You guys should of nominated liberman or Miller someone who would do the right thing about these terroists without regard to party politics. 


> But anyway, what is your response to that correlation between the last two elections?


I don't undertand this question, elaborate please.


----------

