“Wesley Clark endorsed John Kerry for the Democratic nomination, the retired four-star general said that “questioning our leaders, especially in time of war, is one of the highest forms of patriotism.” - Times article

Excuse me while I puke. You can be a patriot and you can question authority, but the 2 are NOT related. Patriotism is devotion to country and the ideals for which it stands. What politicians engage in - jockeying for the top spot, wanting to run the country, firing accusations while running a battle of innuendo in the background - folks, that’s politics.

Wesley Clark and a lot of other empty heads apparently have the room between their ears to assume that the mere act of questioning the President, whether on policy or what he did in the Guard 30 years ago constitutes patriotism.

Excuse me, bullshit.

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and instituted martial law during the Civil War. Would it have made good sense to question Lincoln? Would that have been ‘patriotic’? Or would you have been lumped with John C. Calhoun or canned senseless on the floor of Congress?

FDR instituted ‘speech codes’ and sent police around to question people who questioned the war, even those in their 80s. Were they being ‘patriotic’? Or ‘fifth columnists’? Ignorance of history helps - just keep telling yourself opposition to whatever Bush proposed is ‘patriotic’. Then when you become President, everyone can question your every move and then they can be ‘patriotic’. What crap.

And if we’re attacked, any retaliation on your part will be “Kerry’s War”, like “Lincoln’s War” or “Franklin’s War” before, right?

Sounds funny doesn’t it? We’ve never personalized wars before, have we? Was it LBJ’s War, or Kennedy’s War, or was it Vietnam?

I would suggest to you that true patriotism would propose a way to combat terror that preserves our personal liberties while moving every day to ensure the future safety of our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren - our posterity. Has anyone out there heard anything remotely approaching this from the Presidential contenders?

Yeah, me neither.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at February 15, 2004 10:15 AM

Agreed, questioning leadership is not the same as patriotism. However, questioning leadership may arise from patriotic motivies. They simply are not mutually exclusive.

Kerry has addressed this issue. From his website:

“John Kerry, in his first 100 days as President, will end the ‘Era of John Ashcroft’ and will outline his plan for protecting individual liberties while stepping up the war on terrorism.”

Read more here:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/100days/civil_liberties.html

Kerry also has issued a six point plan on homeland security that addresses some of the issues you raise. Here are some excerpts:

“The most basic responsibility of government is to provide for the common defense. The Bush Administration has provided too little support, too little leadership, and too little vision for the common defense of our homeland. John Kerry believes we shouldn’t be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them in Brooklyn. We need to put our faith and trust in the people on the frontlines – and back it up with real resources.”

You can read the plan here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/homeland/plan.html

Posted by: Todd at February 15, 2004 10:59 AM

“We need to put our faith and trust in the people on the frontlines – and back it up with real resources.” But only if you’re president, right, John? It’s irresponsible to spend money on defense and in Iraq if Bush is president.

Posted by: Uh-huh at February 15, 2004 11:43 AM

Actually, opening firehouses in Brooklyn is a state and local affair. If the nit-wit Mayor Bloomberg of NYC would spend time on governance rather than on micro-managing people’s daily lives, perhaps NYC could afford to keep firehouses open. Tax cuts and a minimum of regulation helps businesses to grow. Bloomberg needs to learn that so that revenues can flow into NYCs coffers. Then he’ll have the funds to keep firehouses open.

Posted by: Helen Lewis at February 15, 2004 12:21 PM

Civil war comparisons are absolutely absurd. Lincoln did not deceptively exaggerate the justifications for the war. The Civil war pitted American against American on American soil and determined the future of a United America. Iraq is an unnecessary war occupation on foriegn soil, based on questionable justifications to determine the futue of Iraq.

{I would suggest to you that true patriotism would propose a way to combat terror that preserves our personal liberties while moving every day to ensure the future safety of our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren - our posterity.”}

Exactly why true patriots must demand an explanation of why the Bush government misdirected our efforts against al Quaida and the jihadists, and deceptively hurled America to a costly bloodly unaccounted for war, and woefully misguided, radically miscalculated occupation and nationbuilding enterprise in Iraq against the wrong Muslims.

We would not be having this debate, and Bush would have much more credibility had our terror fighting efforts remain focused on the mass murderers responsible for 9/11, our jihadist enemies, and true threats to Americas security, prosperity, and posterity lurking in Afghanistan, Peshawar, and Saudi Arabia.

Bush wrapping himself in the flag, calling himself a war president, and parading around the Lincoln like a flyboy prematurely proclaiming “mission accomplished”, combined with the massive failures and deceptions in Iraq - deservedly warrants this necessary examination into Bush’s porous and curious service in the National Guard. He may have been honorably discharged from the Gaurd, but not as a pilot, - why? There are few Gaurd duties more illustrious than a fighter pilot, - and here Bush’s service was not honorably completed, despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars the American tax payers invested in his training. Why? There are many unresolved issues, and Bush’s service in the National Gaurd remains in question.

Bush cannot no longer stand on telemarketed patriotic platitudes, warimagery, fradulent branding, and hollow promises. The people are rightfully demanding accountability, and questioning the credibility of the president and for good reason.

The fact that Bush’s record is potmarked with a long and festering list of deceptions, failures, and abuses is not the fault of Americans, or democrats - nor is questioning these issues unpatriotic. Truebelievers confuse partisan nationalism with patriotism.

I will refer truebelivers to the 1st Amendment, and remind everyone that the American people, and especially patriots have the right to petition the goernment for grievances, and any attempt to stifle, or silence this debate is unpatriotic, un-constitutional, and essentially un-American.

Bush and Kerry must stand on their individual records,- not myths and partisan fictions Let the scrutiny commence in earnest and may the best man win.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at February 15, 2004 12:46 PM

John Kerry has yet to acknowledge that we are at war. He has clearly stated that the UN will become an important factor in foreign policy creation. His policies will subjugate our security to the tender mercies of countries that wish us harm.

Unusually for me, I am a one issue voter this cycle, and my question is, “Are we at war?”

If a candidate does not convincingly answer in the affirmative, I won’t consider their other proposals.

Ergo, Kerry has no chance with me.

MG

Posted by: MG at February 15, 2004 01:48 PM

Agreed, MG.

Posted by: leaddog2 at February 15, 2004 02:27 PM

The Time article on Bush’s wishy-washy National Guard record reinforces our sense in America of a man who has played loose with the truth. In recent days, we’ve heard the name of an intern who supposedly has been involved with a Democrat, but I haven’t heard Drudge speak about Jennifer A. Fitzgerald, a Bush aide and, by a number of accounts, his lover. He lied about his Service, he lied about WMD, he’s floating sex rumors through Drudge about his probable opponent, and he’s allowed radical extremists to run his administration - and thereby threaten our security and our civil liberties. I used to vote Republican, but not this time.

Posted by: Al Davis at February 15, 2004 02:37 PM

Al Davis,

Spewing vicious garbage again, aren’t you!

We part ways here. There is NO WAY the
survival of this country can continue with a
person like Waffling John as a “Maybe-Yes”
Maybe No”, “someday I’ll”, “perhaps” kind
of Leader when the issue is International
Terrorism.

Most Americans will understand that.

Posted by: leaddog2 at February 15, 2004 03:30 PM

Ummm. Special aside to Raider Al Davis:

“Jennifer Fitzgerald” was the alleged paramour of President George HERBERT WALKER Bush, a.k.a, Bush-41. Not George W. Bush, a.k.a., “Dubya,” a.k.a. Bush-43.

George W. Bush and George Herbert Walker Bush are two different people, to the best of my knowledge. Assuming arguendo the truth of the well-vetted allegations re Jennifer Fitzgerald, if people are responsible for blood relatives like that, how could you have ever voted for Bill Clinton knowing that his brother Roger had a drug problem?

In other words, if you are going to spread stoopid rumors, at least make ‘em have a measure or plausibility. And here I thought the reason you lefties hated Bush (43) so much is that “Bush lied!!!!!!” Seems the lies are moving in only one direction here, and they seem to be emanating from your direction.

I guess this is part of “Mobyism” … that strategy started by noted deep-thinker, the disco-singer Moby … about the need to spread lies about George W. Bush on conservative-oriented websites. Go back to your disco, you Moby-puppet you

Posted by: CITT at February 15, 2004 03:51 PM

SWOOOOOSHHH!

The sound of goalposts being moved!

POP POP POP POP POP POP !!

The sounds of new cans of rumour and innuendo being opened by the barking moonbats of the lunatic left.

American politics is such a noisy affair.

Posted by: CERDIP at February 15, 2004 05:20 PM

Thanks, Alan, for such a quality post. Although there was one point that the Time article opened itself up for an allegation of being rumor-mongering.

But given CERDIP’s comments, I think the “moving the goal posts” analogy needs to be developed.

In my mind, Bush’s critics are still waiting for him to show he actually kicked the goal. He has given proof that he got paid to kick the goal, and perhaps that he had goal kicking experience, but the documentation to show the goal was actually kicked, like the game film, is conspicuously absent.

Posted by: Todd at February 15, 2004 06:11 PM

“nor is questioning these issues unpatriotic. Truebelievers confuse partisan nationalism with patriotism.

I will refer truebelivers to the 1st Amendment, and remind everyone that the American people, and especially patriots have the right to petition the goernment for grievances, and any attempt to stifle, or silence this debate is unpatriotic, un-constitutional, and essentially un-American.” - Tony

Re-read my post Tony. I am NOT questioning anyone’s patriotism. I am NOT questioning (or stifling, for that matter) anyone’s line of inquiry.

You’re the one confusing partisan politics with patriotism. You can be a patriot AND question the President. Read what I said, QUESTIONING THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT MAKE YOU A PATRIOT. You’re making ‘if A, then B’ inferences. I’m saying ‘A with B or A without B’. Or maybe you consider Ken Starr some sort of patriot? (hey, just let me know).

Thanks for the Cliff Notes summary of the 1st Amendment, but save it. You should always question authority, but doing so can be a simple act to gain political advantage (like Lindbergh’s America First lobby prior to WWII) and does not QUALIFY every questioner for some Patriots’ Club.

We can have a much more gratifying debate if you read and understand what I write. This will require you to suspend the kneejerk reaction that assumes everyone who questions YOUR motives to be unpatriotic.

(PS And praytell, what type of nationalism ISN‘T partisan?)

Posted by: torpedo_eight at February 15, 2004 06:20 PM

Torpedo you started with Clark. But besides insulting him do you believe his service as a general
gives him any room to question the conduct of the president?

Posted by: King6Kong at February 15, 2004 06:35 PM

Questioning is fine. Its more helpful to the nation (i.e. patriotic) if the questions were good ones which moved the debate forward, rather than ones meant to score political points.

I’d say if Clark wants to question on the basis of his military experience, he’s got the authority to do that on military matters…assuming one believes Clark to be a good measurer of military matters, that’s another issue. On political and diplomatic matters, though, Clark’s got no more experience that any other citizen. And frankly, some of his pronouncements made me wonder how tight his grip on reality is.

I also have to say, “John Kerry believes we shouldn’t be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them in Brooklyn.” is sliding really close to pushing isolationism at a time when we need to be out in the world, engaging and nullifying the forces which threaten us. IMHO packing up and hoping the rest of the world will leave us alone is the kind of thinking that lead us to 9-11 in the first place, and is the last thing I want to hear from a potential POTUS.

Posted by: tagryn at February 15, 2004 07:18 PM

Let’s all step back to the main question here: Qualifications to be President.

There is no rule that the Democrats have to accept Bush’s claims on their face. However, it is quite another matter when a specific claim is placed against him: The Democrats have a clear and undeniable responsibility to prove their claim. Making a claim and demanding President Bush prove them wrong is foul, and everyone knows it.

Yes, it was Michael Moore, not one of the candidates, who claimed Bush was a “deserter”. But no Democrat ever spoke against Moore; they were quite willing to take the publicity of such a charge, and the claim is clearly baseless;

But it becomes even more of a foul, for DNC Chairman McAuliffe to claim Bush was “AWOL”, with no support at all for the claim.

There is a clear line here. A Democrat may say he is not sure how Bush fulfillled his Guard requirments, or he may say there appear to be gaps in Bush’s service records, but to claim Bush was “Absent Without Leave”, is to specifically accuse the President of a felony under the Uniform Miitary Code of Military Justice, and the burden for such a claim DEMANDS that the Democrats prove their claim.

Bush has provided records, pay data, and witnesses in support of his Guard duty, and if it is not possible to account for every piece of his service, Bush has certainly shown, when this information is added to his Honorable Discharge and his formal reviews on record, that he neither deserted nor committed any violations of the law.

Ironically, this is an issue which can really hurt Kerry later on this year.

Kerry has made a number of statements regarding his Vietnam-war conduct, to such a point that he could legitimately be described as “an admitted war criminal”. But Bush’s agents have stayed away from that negative track, for the same reason Kerry should stay away from the “AWOL” lie against Bush.

You see, it’s obvious (or should be), that the Democrats have clearly decided upon Kerry, and the Republicans support Bush. Ultimately, this election comes down to the same three factors the 2000 Election did, but with these changes:

ISSUES - The War in Iraq is a real factor in this election. If Kerry tries to dwell on Bush’s Guard service, it will hurt Kerry here. That is, some Democrats have already insulted the National Guard as a whole, in an attempt to cast a shadow on Bush serving in the Guard. But that ignores the fact that there are several DIVISIONS of Guards in Iraq right now, and their families won’t take kindly to the insult;

NADER - Yes, he’s running again. While Bush’s Guard service won’t be a factor in Nader’s campaign, the Democrats will have to decide whether they want to play Centrist or Leftist in this campaign. If they play Centrist, like Clinton did, they will have to abandon the petty attacks on Bush and stick to the issues, and they will have tyo accept that they will lose whatever Nader pulls away. But if they play Leftist to keep the Naderites in suport of Nader, they will alienate a number of the swing voters, especially in the Battleground states. Count on Nader to keep the pot boiling, where Kerry will feel the heat;

ANGER; the Democrats have understood the power of voter anger, and they hope to build a fire of resentment against Bush. But that kind of play can easily backfire, and many people who don’t like the job Bush as done that much still respect the man, and cheap shots like the “AWOL” claim might make them mad enough to vote for Bush, out of pique at the Democrats’ pettiness.

All in all, this one stings right now for the President, but can easily work in his favor if the Democrats don’t back off their lies and slander.

Posted by: GDubya at February 15, 2004 07:40 PM

King6Kong: The question of Bush serving in the Guard (I didn’t see him every day, either) is not going to change the minds of most voters. Kerry supporters hate Bush with a passion already and any indication he shirked his duties will just be more gasoline for their fire. Bush supporters will say, hey, here’s all the evidence - he didn’t set the world on fire, but he didn’t desert and he wasn’t AWOL - now apologize.

This is a Mexican standoff. Could we possibly discuss the economy, terrorism, civil liberties and national defense now?

Clark has the military experience in weigh in with his views of how Bush is conducting the war - but this isn’t the issue here.

I’m going to assume that since it’s ‘patriotic’ to question the President, it’s still okay to insult former generals. Clark is a major flake. Up until 9 months ago, he was a republican, making statements to support Bush, Blair and the war effort. Now we’re supposed to pretend that didn’t happen. He’s been a democrat all along. Then he tells 12 reporters ‘off the record’ that Kerry will implode with an intern issue, then that didn’t happen. He endorses Kerry in the same week.

There is no groundswell of support for Clark inside the military today - probably because they feel the same way about him that I do. In fact, Wesley Clark’s constituency consists of Bill and Hillary and Terry McAulife, who were scared to death Dean was going to take it all if they didn’t step in with a candidate of their own.

I personally have not heard Clark address any statements toward how he would have prosecuted the war differently. He knows better than to trigger a military backlash at this point. Instead, he’s gone the route of the Patriotic Kibbitzer. Questioning the President is ALWAYS the act of a PATRIOT.

Right.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at February 16, 2004 10:05 AM

Clark is a nutcase.

Posted by: mark buehner at February 16, 2004 12:21 PM

Why are we discussing Clark?

Maybe it’s because we already know what Bush is all about, and Kerry won’t tell anybody his plans, except that he blames Bush for everything.

Kerry is accused of an affair by two major Democratic candidates - it’s Bush’s fault.

Kerry voted for the Iraq War AND the Patriot Act - but that’s Bush’s fault.

Kerry cut himself shaving one day last week - that’s Bush’s fault.

Geez, hate Bush or his policies if you must, but are you REALLY telling me you see Kerry as a man who can make the hard decisions and face the pressure the President has to face everyday, when as soon as a couple questions come up, Kerry immediately tries to brush them off as inconsequential or a Republican attack?

Fast-forward to a hypothetical press conference, sometime in 2006:

“President Kerry, Hurricane Al took out the entire state of Georgia. What will you do?”

“The Hurricane was the result of complete mismanagement of the weather by the Bush Administration, and you can ask George W. Bush what he will do about it. Next?”

“President Kerry, what do you plan to do about the threat by the People’s Republic of China taking Taiwan and the Korean peninsula by force?”

“Obviously, the Bush Administration failed to plan for the needs of the Chinese people, and my Adminstration will apologize to Peking the next time we meet. Next?”

“President Kerry, the public wants a straight answer on SOMETHING, so: Do you prefer boxers or briefs?”

“Well, as you know, unlike the Bush Administration, I have no intention of making a mockery of our Constitution by making a decision on my own, so I have asked the United Nations to intervene on this issue. Until their commission releases its findings, I will not be wearing underwear at all.”

[ room empties ]

One wonders…

Posted by: GDubya at February 16, 2004 01:02 PM

You describe the exact tactics Bush uses to counter badnews, blaming everything on “Clintoon”, and “Libruls’, or anyone else. Bush takes no responsibility for anything, and there is absolutely zero accountability, and thus no crediblity.

The release of the National Guard papers has not resolved questions of Bush’s service to the guard in 1972-73, many of which remain unanswered, including the issue of being AWOL.

I can’t wait to revisit Bush’s book cooking tenure at Harken Energy.

The point about patriotism is taken torpedo_eight, - but you logic does not apply to much of theright, (Ann Coulter’s reprehensible Cleland slime is a good example), and that tactic is so offensive and scurrilous that it cannot go unchallenged at any time.

The election will center on many things, but credibility is the critical test.

Only the dim or ignorant believe Kerry or any democrat will quit, or slack on hunting, capturing, or killing jihadist mass murderers, and those that aid and abet them, or run away from Iraq. This is nonsense, ridiculous in light of the facts, (particularly Clintons’ tenure), and nothing more than partisan propaganda and demonization and myth.

The sad fact is, and will always be - that 9/11 happened well into Bush’s watch, - that there was plenty of intel warning of an imminent threat from al Quaida, - that the Bush government has and is doing everything in it’s considerable power to silence, stonewall, suppress, and erase investigations or scrutiny of these failures, - and that the Iraq war has needlessly diverted attention and resources away from hunting, capturing, or killing the jihadist mass murderers responsible for 9/11, and those that aid and abet them.

The Bush administration has lost all credibility with everyone on the planet outside of truebeliever circles.

This is not the fault of the media, (which only recently emerged from a long torpor) or Kerry, or Clinton, or “Libruls”, or any outside force. The Bush administration alone, and singularly is responsible for the total lack of crediblity by it’s own predatory secretive, deceptive, cloaked, divisive, brutish, dim and simplistic, and ideological tactics, policies, and hidden agenda.

Add to this volitile mix the fact that there exist no accountability from the Bush administration - and theright, and truebelievers must attempt to defend the utterly indefensible.

The only other option is rabid sliming, and demonizing of opposition, any questioner, evey question, and whomever is the Democratic candidate, (Kerry it would appear).

The problem here for theright is that we theleft expect, and are quite used to, and prepared for the slime and deominzation attacks, and worse for Bush, - the American public is desensitized to such trivial matters as a candidates sex life should any of these Kerry slurrs prove true.

Some voters will be swayed no doubt, - but most will see through the tranparent attempt to slime the opposition and divert attention away from a long and festering list of Bush administration abuses, deceptions, acts of malfeasance and prefidy, crony capitalist profiteeriing, predatory warmongering, slogannering, and neglect.

Crediblity is the key, and Bush is sorely lacking, so theright must work to damage Kerry’s credibility to even the contest. We will all see if Roves propaganda, disinformation, and slime covens can succeed in sliming Kerry enough to do real damage - otherwise, - Bush, like his papa is a one term President.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at February 16, 2004 02:27 PM

GDubya,

Would you also criticize the Bush White House for blaming everything bad that has happened to it on the Clinton Administration? To wit: “we inherited the recession from Clinton’s economic policies.” “9/11 is Clinton’s fault because of a lack of funding priorites for intelligence and defense.”

And what do you make of Kerry’s explanation of his vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq during last night’s debate. In case you missed it, Kerry suggested that he had voted to authorize a process by which force would be used as a last resort and Bush betrayed that process. Can you legitimately suggest that Kerry’s vote on the Iraq resolution prevents him from criticizing the manner in which Bush implemented that resolution, particuarly where Kerry alleges that Bush acted contrary to the resolution? Its not that simple.

Your wonderment is no mystery; your absurd result is the product of faulty premises.

Posted by: Todd at February 16, 2004 02:30 PM

Todd, all I really need to do, is to remind you to read the text of the bill: It SPECIFICALLY authorized force.

Bush “betrayed” nothing. Kerry is just throwing baseless charges.

Again.

Are you saying, perhaps, that Kerry votes without reading the bills?

If so, that would explain why he also voted for the Patriot Act.

And if you think Kerry was confused, maybe you need to go back and read some of his statements about Saddam Hussein and WMD.

Take off the blinders, fella, you’ll run into things.

Like the facts.

Posted by: GDubya at February 16, 2004 02:52 PM

And Tony, at least the facts support what Bush says.

Nothing at all supports Kerry, and STILL he pretends Bush is guilty of something.

Somebody sold Kerry a really dumb strategy. He had the edge in military service, but blew it on a phoney rumor. REEEEEEEAL smart, huh?

I wonder what RUMOR the Dems will try next…

They don’t seem to think they can win on the issues.

Interesting, isn’t it?

Posted by: GDubya at February 16, 2004 02:56 PM

GDubya,

Kerry hastened to point out that Bush didn’t need the resolution to authorize the use of force, and characterized the resolution as a way to reign in the president who, at that time, was intent on completely side-stepping the UN. His point was the resolution authorized a process using force AS A LAST RESORT and, to that end, was betrayed.

But consider my blinders off. I have not read the resolution in some time. I will read it and get back to you. Meanwhile, to be clear: is it your contention that the resolution was an open-ended, no-strings-attached authorization of force? Just want to be sure I don’t miss bumping into any “facts.”

Posted by: Todd at February 16, 2004 03:22 PM

PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that —

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

H.R.J. Res. 114 Section 3 (emphasis added).

Posted by: Todd at February 16, 2004 03:38 PM

GDubya,

“Baseless charges”?

I would recommend that if you are looking for blinders, you might want to check ebay, but it seems you already have a pair.

Posted by: Todd at February 16, 2004 03:50 PM

Let’s see what Kerry himself said at the time:

“Today, we are confronted by a regional power, Iraq, which has attacked a weaker state, Kuwait, for both territorial gain and control of an important resource. The crisis is even more threatening by virtue of the fact that Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program. And Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons of mass destruction in the past, whether in his war against Iran or against his own Kurdish population.” Sen. John Kerry, speaking in the US Senate, 1990

“If we go to war in the next few days, it will not be because our immediate vital interests are so threatened and we have no other choice. It is not because of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons when, after all, Saddam Hussein had all those abilities or was working toward them for years—even while we armed him and refused to hold him accountable for using some of them.” Sen. John Kerry, Jan. 1991, speaking in the US Senate

“Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so.” Sen. John Kerry, Feb. 1998, The Senate Radio/TV Gallery

“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real … he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons” Sen. John Kerry, October 9, 2002, speaking in the US Senate

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” Sen. John F. Kerry Oct. 9, 2002, speaking in the US Senate

“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003, speaking on CNN

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation …And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …” Sen. John F. Kerry, Jan. 23, 2003, speaking in the US Senate

“I know that most Americans agree that capturing [Saddam Hussein] has indeed eliminated threats to the United States and made us safer,” Sen. John Kerry, January 3, 2004, at a police union hall in Pleasant Hill

Amazing how clear he is, when he isn’t the Democratic nominee (presumptive), hmm?

Posted by: GDubya at February 16, 2004 04:35 PM

Facts about what Bush says? That’s funny. Like Weapons of mass destruction related programs, like “mushroom clouds” or “days or horro like none we have ever known” or that Bush performed his duties in the national guard honorably, or that the first round of tax cuts would create more than a million jobs. You’re joking right?

If not you confuse partisan fantasy with reality.

Herein lies the core problem and the great divide we hold. You believe all the fictions and hollow meaningless promises spewed out of the Bush government, - we do not believe a word - and with good reason!

We demand accountability, examination of, and investigations into several radical abuses, failures, and deceptioins and a vetting of facts -

I have news for you - the mission in Iraq is nowhere near accomplished, it certainly is no cake walk, there are no WMD, Saddam was not operationally linked to al Quaida prior to the war, the 160bn occupation and nationbuiding enterprize is not being paid for by Iraqi oil reciepts, there is not one penney applied to Iraq or Afghanistan in the current budget, 2.3 million Americans are unemployed and poor and middle class Americans are not “confident” or “positive” about the economy, the super rich are getting richer, while the poor and middle class are squeezed and battered on several fronts and loosing more wealth and rights everday, many mostly poor and rural children have been left very far behind, - Bush is a DIVIDER not a uniter, and the USA Patriot Act is anathema to the guiding principles and essential rights, privaleges, freedoms and protections of the people previously defining American democracy. This list is disingenuous claims and hollow worthless promises is long and festering.

Bush says one thing does another, and there is a huge and festering “credibility chasm” surrounding the Bush administration that is rooted in solid well founded evidence proving deception, abuse, failure, and neglect. These are no baseless accusations sir.

Bush is guilty of deceptively terrorizing the Congress, the American public, and the world into believing Iraq was such an imminent, or immediate “continuing threat”, that a bloody costly war, and woefully misguided, radicallly miscalculated occupation and natinbuilding enterprize was necessary - at all costs.

You might want to examine who is floating rumors, and who is posing legitimate and critical questions relating to activites, policie, or agenda impacting all our lives. Kerry’s sex life is not criitical to the future of the free world, - Bush’s total lack of credibility is.

You are attempting to defend the indefensible - and doomed to fail.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at February 16, 2004 04:41 PM

GDubya,

I don’t know what you think you are proving with those quotes, but none of them support your accusation that Kerry’s betrayal statement was “baseless.” Given your track record, I would not be surprised to find out that you have taken some of them out of a context that is further consistent with Kerry’s comments last night.

Yes, Kerry clearly beleived that force would ultimately be necessary. So did I. So did a lot of people. Bush is being criticized for the alienating manner in which he took this country to war without fulling exhausting the diplomatic channels and by slanting the intelligence. And on that issue, Kerry is going to bring a lot of people into his fold. And Bushies just don’t want to get that through thier heads.

“If you want to play blind man, then go walk with a shepherd. But my eyes are wide fuckin open.”

Posted by: Todd at February 16, 2004 05:17 PM

One more time, Tony.

You want to complain about the Kerry-Affair rumors, you go right ahead and talk to Mr. Dean and Mr. Clark. It’s their baby, so to speak. The Republicans are just enjoying your in-house squabble.

As for “deceptively terrorizing Congress”, get real. Everyone who voted knew exactly what they were doing, and the flip-flop now is just political posturing by the Democrats, and it’s not even smart. You COULD have been constant, agreed you supported the war, and demanded Bush give credit to the Democrats he needed for his authorization, but instead you’re trying to get people to believe you didn’t mean what you said for FIVE YEARS before the war. You could have pointed out that Bush built his plans on the foundation built by Clinton’s opposition to Saddam’s intransigence to the required disarmament, but instead you threw it away and tried to say it was all Bush - and now, when it’s too late, you want to claim credit for what went right and still trash the man who followed his convictions and made the region safer for everyone who wasn’t in the Baath Party.

The word you’re looking for is ” —- oops —- “.

The economy is coming around, and we won in Iraq and Afghanistan both.

If you can win in November by showing you have a better plan than Bush, more power to you. But if all you have is more cheap shots and hysteria, you are going to be in real trouble.

You see, what you say to people who already agree with you might make you feel good, but it won’t count for diddly if you can’t back it up.

Just like those lies about Bush’s Guard service being “desertion” or “AWOL”; didn’t you realize people would find out, or maybe demand you back up your claims?

Making claims without support, well maybe it plays in New York, but then again, more than Missouri will expect you to put up or shut up.

And by now, everyone knows you’re bluffing.

Posted by: GDubya at February 16, 2004 05:20 PM

Todd, you’re either being funny, or you’re in denial.

Those quotes make clear what was in Kerry’s mind when he voted to approve force.

Only now, he wants to play down Bush’s success.

It’s far too late for that, of course, but Kerry will learn that the hard way.

Posted by: GDubya at February 16, 2004 05:22 PM

Gdubya, thanks for proving my point.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” Sen. John F. Kerry Oct. 9, 2002, speaking in the US Senate

Seems like your blinders are doing a fine job. Although, they are supposed to let you see what is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU. Better get a shepherd.

Posted by: Todd at February 16, 2004 05:25 PM

// You see, what you say to people who already agree with you might make you feel good, but it won’t count for diddly if you can’t back it up. //

On that score, I will agree with you.

Posted by: Todd at February 16, 2004 05:35 PM

The answer to your false dichotomy is neither, but you seem to be incapable of admitting what I am being.

The cherry-picked quotes show some of what was in Kerry’s mind; but you screwed up - they also show support for his comment last night.

Whether Iraq was a success or failure is a subject upon which reasonable minds can differ, and that issue is worth debating. With a reasonable mind.

Yes, Kerry is spinning. But it is not “baseless” as you allege.

Posted by: Todd at February 16, 2004 05:49 PM

“If Necessary” was up to the President, Todd.

That was known when the bill was approved.

In any case it’s more than Clinton did, when he sent troops to Bosnia.

But of course, since Bush wasn’t President at the time, you won’t want to look at that as an example of Executive/Legislative branch interaction, would you?

Posted by: GDubya at February 16, 2004 06:08 PM

“If necessary” was if the diplomatic process specified in the resolution failed, which is consistent with what Kerry said last night. And yes, that was up to the president. Kerry is criticizing Bush for failing to adquately exhaust the diplomatic process. In essence, Kerry is saying Bush was not a suitable guardian for the trust Congress gave him. That is not a baseless acusation. You were wrong, but I don’t expect you to admit it. Integrity does not seem to be a conservative value currently in vogue.

I have no idea what the relevance of your other comment was about Bosnia, and I am disinclined to debate this with you any further. But I do find it interesting that you were able to work in some “It’s all Clinton’s fault” rehtoric into your argument. At least you are consistent, albeit misguided.

Posted by: Todd at February 16, 2004 06:27 PM

Come November, Todd, you may learn a few things.

I wasn’t blaming Clinton, btw, although I expected you to try that tack: I was actually reminding you that YOU are holding Bush to a different standard than you did Mr. Clinton.

But integrity in most Democrats went out with Kennedy. Bobby Kennedy.

Posted by: GDubya at February 16, 2004 06:31 PM

BDubya,

You seem to be arguing with your demons, not me. I’ll leave you be.

Posted by: Todd at February 16, 2004 06:50 PM

It is a Rove disinformation myth and fiction that democrats had anything to do with the Kerry allegations. The story broke on Drudge (a rightwing partisan blog) and the timing and the nature of the release reak of a Rove sliming.

Neither the Afghanistan, nor Iraq missions are yet complete and in both instances America is in for bloody costly and long hard slogs.

Few people supported the war. Some supported containment, and a vigorous inspections process others supported the regime change as policy, - but Kosovo is the model reasoned American prefer, not the currect devolving quagmire and deceptive war and costly blooding noendinsight occupation in Iraq.

You are distorting the truth and injecting Rove myth and disinformation into the mix. There was universal condemnation of Saddam, - but there were many many other options to pursue before Bush deceptively forced an unjust, unnecessary war and woefully misguided, radically miscalculated occupation and nationbuilding enterprize down our throats. You simplistic singlemindedness beguiles your logic and reality.

Regime change was a Clinton construct - the Iraq war is all Bush.

Do you read anything beyond NewsMax? I doubt it - because if you did, you would know the region is NOT safer for anyone. Iraq is on the verge of civil war, and teeming with jihadists creeping in from all over the world bent killing Americans and disrupting the democratization of Iraq.

You succumb to the Rove/Bush mindwarp convincing you that hollow meaningless promises of what may someday possibly, hopefully happen - have any relation to the actual past and present realities in Iraq, the ME, and beyond.

You must be a multi millionaire, because the economy is certainly NOT turning around for poor and middle class Americans. This huge detachment and divide will seriously hurt Bush in 2004, because he has understanding and obviously little concern for the realities facing poor and middle class Americans.

From your lofty perch the economy may look like it’s turning around, but from our pedestrian perspective - there is more uncertainty and much less prospertity, we are working harder for less, 2.3 million are unemployed, millions more are underemployed, our wages are shrinking with our bargaining power, our costs of living increasing radically, - millions of children have no insurance, and the Bush government thinks it’s fine to ship American jobs overseas.

Again there is a huge disconnect between the hollow words and the hard realities.

The hysteria and cheap shots eminate from your camp. We are demanding accountability for the leadership for a long and festering list of deceptions, abuses, failures and neglect, and posing legitmate and critical question relating to events impacting all our lives. There is nothing cheap or hysterical about our concerns.

Desertion may be off message, - but the facts so far do nothing to counter the AWOL issue. Riddle me this - Bush may have been honorably discharged, but he did not complete his duties as an aviator - despite the hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars invested in his training - WHY?

Bush actual service in the NG during 1972-73 remain an unanswered question.

Lastly it is Bush and truebelievers who must put up or shut up — because all the Bush administratiion pretty promises, wildly exaggerated threatspeak justifications, partisan soothsaying, and premature proclamations of victory - are proving hollow and moot - and belie the present realities we all must confront in Iraq, here in America, and beyond.

Bush is accountable.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at February 16, 2004 07:29 PM

Sorry, but for clarity - Bush has NO understanding of the realities facng poor and middle class Americans.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at February 16, 2004 07:42 PM

Tony.

Whatever you’re smoking, be sure you stop before you go out driving.

Bush is a LOT more in touch with average Americans (like me) than Kerry can ever dream of.

But then, I guess you WOULD want to get away from the fact that Bush made his money, while Kerry married his.

Enjoy the illusion that Kerry will win while you can. That is, unless Kerry can come up with something more substantial than “Bush Bad Me Good”, his lead will last until the weather gets warm, or people wise up to the hollow man on the Democrat’s ticket.

Posted by: GDubya at February 16, 2004 10:15 PM

That is something I have never been able to understand: how middle americans can be so out of touch with their own situation that they think Bush’s policies actually help them.

Posted by: Todd at February 16, 2004 10:29 PM

Good point Todd.

Name one good thing the Bush administration has done for America’s poor and middle class GDubya. We know the super rich are benefiting obscenely and partisan phatasmagoria and hollow airy promises of some future of supposedly greater good are myths and fictions “full of sound and fury, sginifying nothing.”

Name one good thing the Bush administration has done for poor and middle class Americans.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at February 16, 2004 11:40 PM

“Bush made his money, while Kerry married his.”

This is funnier than Redneck Texan. Respect.

Posted by: dirk strom at February 17, 2004 01:00 AM

Sorry, Tony, I don’t buy into class warfare.

But ALL Americans are safe because of Bush’s leadership, and his tax cuts are good for ALL taxpayers.

That’s why when ALL Americans vote this November (intsead of just the Dems right now), Dubya will receive another term.

But back atcha just for fun: name one concrete, specific plan for foreign policy or economic stability that Kerry has developed.

Just saying he’ll undo Bush’s tax cuts and be different from Dubya doesn’t fly.

Individual heroism thirty years ago is honorable, but we’re hiring for what you will do as leader of the largest and most complex power in the world. Bush has a track record; Kerry has only sound bytes.

Posted by: GDubya at February 17, 2004 10:10 AM

correction: “safer”, not safe.

Don’t want someone thinking I’m a utopian.

Posted by: GDubya at February 17, 2004 10:12 AM

Again GDubya, you confuse myth with reality. The super rich enjoyed lavish tax largess, the rest of America has seen their puny tax rebate drowned by accross the board cost of living increases, increaces in state and cities taxes necessitated by the Federal government deprivation. You’re math is fuzzy, and your rhetoric parrots the RNC and hacks like Coulter, Limbagh, Gillespie which is airy and hollow.

If all Americans are safe, why was there an Orange Alert during the holidays. Why are so many flights cancelled, why is Ascroft allowed to rape and pillage the Bill of Rights to pursue terrorists. You confuse myth with reality.

We have (thankfully) not been attacked again on our soil, and we all applaud the Bush government successes in hunting, capturing, or killing jihadist mass murderers, and those that aid and abet them, - but we have fewer friends, and a world seething with enemies, the jihadist are entrenching and reconstituting in Afhanistan, and slaughtering Americans and Iraqi’s in Iraq, and as long as the House of Saud is considered “good friends” by the Bush government - we are no safer today then we were on 09/10/2001.

9/11, a mission not completed in Afghanistan, a deceptive, bloody, costly war, and woefully misguided, radically miscalculated occupation and nationbuilding enterprize in Iraq, with noendinsight. 2.3 million unemployed Americans, the largerst divide of rich and poor in America’s history, a debt burn economny benefitting only the superrich, a radical erosion of the Bill of rights, endemic and systemic book cooking crony capitalist corporate culture, a fiercely divided America, a world that fears or loathes our government - what track record are you referring too?

Bush’s track record is full of deceptions, abuses, failures, and neglect, with a huge festering, and widening “credibility chasm”. Talking points are all Bush has to stand on, because the hard realities examined in the clear light of day are more than troubling and- warranting a regime change here in America.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at February 19, 2004 12:51 AM

Lotta whining in your post, Tony.

Insecure with your guy? You should be.

First off, you keep trying to play class war, but that’s always been a losing battle. News flash pal: The rich had a grand old time under Clinton, no worse than under Bush. Know why? Because rich people have enough money to always take care of themselves. Trying to pin Bush for trying to help out all Americans with the “tax break for the rich” lie, is only one of the many cheap shots and dishonest tactics used against Bush.

The tax cut was simple: You got a check if you paid taxes, and people who PAID the most got the best break. Anyone skipping through on loopholoes got NADA. So, by looking at how the tax cuts actually worked, people who didn’t pay didn’t get money, and people who played fast and loose with the rules didn’t get money, but people who were honest and paid their taxes, got help. That’s fair and right, even if your favorite special interest didn’t get its graft. Boo hoo for you.

And only a fool would claim we are not safer than 2001. Know why Al Qaeda never hit us in a sequel to 9/11? BECAUSE BUSH TOOK THE WAR DIRECTLY TO THEM. Know why we went to Iraq? Partly because Iraq hosted terrorists for the last 25 years, and if Al Qaeda wasn’t there already, they would have gone there next. Bush made Americans safer, by making terrorists targets. Most of us figured that out a long time ago; only people trying to spin their political chances would deny that; heck, even Kerry is on record as saying Dean was an idiot for not agreeing America is safer now.

As for Bush’s record, I think you are completely off base, and are simply spewing more hate. Bush has done his level best to work with all parties, and yet he gets vilified for everything the Left can throw at him. He supports a massive increase in Medicare spending, the first President to advocate covering prescription drugs for seniors, yet the Democrats lie that he hates them. He suports a huge education bill written by Ted Kennedy, but the Democrats lie that he hates kids. And so on.

Spew all you want, Tony, you’re not going to win with lies.

Posted by: GDubya at February 19, 2004 10:20 AM