The Command Post
2004 US Presidential Election
March 14, 2004
| Kerry Refuses To Reveal Which Foreign Leaders Support Him

On Fox News Sunday Chris wallace asked Secretary of State Powell about Kerry’s assertion that foreign leaders want Kerry to defeat Bush:

WALLACE: All right. I’m not sure you can answer this one, but I would like to get your comment on it, if I could.

Senator Kerry says that foreign leaders — you look like you know this — want him to beat the president. And here’s what he’s had to say: “I’ve met with foreign leaders who can’t go out and say this publicly, but boy, they look at you and say, ‘You’ve got to win this. You’ve got to beat this guy. We need a new policy.”’

POWELL: I can’t even talk to that, Chris. I don’t know what foreign leaders Senator Kerry is talking about. It’s an easy charge, an easy assertion to make. But if he feels it is that important an assertion to make, he ought to list some names. If he can’t list names, then perhaps he should find something else to talk about.

Kerry refused to reveal which foreign leaders are rooting for him when questioned about the issue during a town meeting in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.



Posted by Dan Spencer at March 14, 2004 06:22 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Smart political move. Naming the leaders of Iran and North Korea as supporters wouldn’t help Kerry any.

Posted by: Spade at March 14, 2004 10:39 PM

Maybe he doesn’t know their names. There is a precedent.

Posted by: I'm a banana at March 14, 2004 11:11 PM

Spade….you hit it on the head. Who would benefit more, if Kerry were elected?

Posted by: Jeff B at March 15, 2004 01:29 AM

Kim Il Jung, Bashar al-Assad, Ayatollah Khomeini.

Posted by: Mark Buehner at March 15, 2004 01:56 AM

Kerry will benefit Khomeini? Cripes! Not only does he have superb hair, he can raise the dead. Karl Rove’s toughest assignment yet.

Posted by: I'm a banana at March 15, 2004 04:27 AM

BananaMan President Bush is still playin’ the same hand he played the last time around. Kerry ought to be lookin’ for Divine Intervention, cuz he needs it.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 15, 2004 07:28 AM

you forgot Arafat, kerry say’s he’s a statesman, and yassar really liked that…

Posted by: Fat Guy at March 15, 2004 09:07 AM

kerry say’s he’s a statesman

Hmm, you neocons kin’t evan spell… ;-)

Posted by: Voice of Reason at March 15, 2004 09:40 AM

kerry say’s he’s a statesman

Hmm, you neocons kin’t evan spell… ;-)

Posted by: Voice of Reason at March 15, 2004 09:40 AM

Perhaps the Kerry Myth is unwinding story here

Posted by: CERDIP at March 15, 2004 10:22 AM

SqueekyVoice Neether kin u.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 15, 2004 10:23 AM

CERDIP…..Did I not call this from the very beginning? I know people…..Kerry is NOT war hero material and NEVER has been. He is a phoney sob. I will be curious to see where this story goes from here. Do you suppose CNN will take this story and run?? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA…….yeah right.

Some liberal socialist senator was just on Fox running his mouth about what a war hero Kerry was. I’m gonna puke.

Posted by: Jeff B at March 15, 2004 10:51 AM

Thanks, CERDIP I was aware of this story awhile back, but it seemed rather inconsequential to me. Many of us suffered ‘flesh wounds’ that didn’t amount to squat, but the mere chance that enemy fire was involved was not enough to warrant a Purple Heart. I don’t chastise him for any of his acts ‘In Country’, but rather his duplicitous language which began upon his return. I have a very difficult time controlling my temper when his name comes up, and this didn’t start since he’s been a candidate, this started over thirty years ago.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 15, 2004 11:26 AM

I suspect that for a long time, this Kerry advanced under the cover the ‘other’ one. That is to say, Medal of Honour recipient Bob Kerrey, about whose courage and fortitude there has rarely been doubt, I think - even in the face of the Bronze Star incident questions).

The slight variation in spelling would not have been enough to prevent confusion in people’s minds when they heard about Bob Kerrey’s story.

Posted by: CERDIP at March 15, 2004 11:40 AM

Wasn’t Bush allowed to say that there were some unnamed governments that joined, anonymously, the Iraq war coalition last year? Is there a principled distinciton between what Bush said and what Kerry said?

Posted by: Todd at March 15, 2004 12:57 PM

Yes, we can document Kerry’s lies, while you have to make Bush’s up for him.

Posted by: jones at March 15, 2004 12:59 PM

jones LOL. ROFLMAO. That was better than Dilbert this morning…

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 15, 2004 01:08 PM

Yes, we can document Kerry’s lies, while you have to make Bush’s up for him.

This is funny. Unfortunately, Bush lies lie in plain site.

Posted by: Anthony at March 15, 2004 01:10 PM

That’s pretty weak, Jones. Pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty weak.

Posted by: Todd at March 15, 2004 01:33 PM

. . . but not surprising.

Posted by: Todd at March 15, 2004 01:35 PM

OK,

Surprise me with some Bush lies. Not mistakes, not changes in policy, not opinion, not stuff you disagree with, not stuff everyone else said too that turned out wrong, not crap Pass finds in The Nation or where ever the heck he goes.

Documentable Lies.

Also, tell me what you did to remove Clinton in ‘98 and when and why lying got bad all of the sudden in 2001.

Posted by: jones at March 15, 2004 01:40 PM

OK,

Surprise me with some Bush lies. Not mistakes, not changes in policy, not opinion, not stuff you disagree with, not stuff everyone else said too that turned out wrong, not crap Pass finds in The Nation or where ever the heck he goes.

Documentable Lies.

Also, tell me what you did to remove Clinton in ‘98 and when and why lying got bad all of the sudden in 2001.

Posted by: jones at March 15, 2004 01:40 PM

Oop, double tap.

Posted by: jones at March 15, 2004 01:41 PM

I thought Khomeni was just a fictitious scapegoat for Bush´s box cutter Australian wannabe immigrant army, directed by oil construction business associates. Of course I could be wrong.

Posted by: AWOLontheeconomy at March 15, 2004 02:21 PM

Was that a fly-by tin hat bomber?

Posted by: mark buehner at March 15, 2004 02:34 PM

“Wasn’t Bush allowed to say that there were some unnamed governments that joined, anonymously, the Iraq war coalition last year? “

??

Didnt Bush rattle off about two dozen of them in the state of the union? Oh, I remember, they were all piddly little nothing states. Like Spain. Oh wait, that was last week. Now Spain is our most critical ally! It so confusing when one of your allies leaves your unilateral coalition. You start to risk the entire language paradox collapsing into a black hole of contradictions in terms and bad rhetoric. Cant the left get one of their legendary ivy league professors to straighten this out for us? The upside is we’ve given the Zen something new to contemplate:

How can an ally leave a unilateral coalition?

Posted by: mark buehner at March 15, 2004 02:39 PM

Anthony Put up or shut up. On the LIES part. You ‘d better make it freakin’ air-tight, and you’d better support it with something other than your Left-wing Nut. And while you’re at it, you can explain the Freakin’ Lyin’ AssHat by the name of Kerry, who lied UNDER OATH before Congress thirty years ago. That, more than anything is goin’ to be Senator Kerry’s SwanSong as far as I’m concerned, and I’m joined by, say, a few million Veterans who feel the same.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 15, 2004 02:55 PM

Your reactionary pals dont care about truth or lies, they just werent in Kerry´s peace camp. No amount of beligerent phonyism is going to change that. You could feed your dogs their own dick and they would just get hungry for more.

Posted by: kingtut at March 15, 2004 03:54 PM

Your reactionary pals dont care about truth or lies, they just werent in Kerry´s peace camp. No amount of beligerent phonyism is going to change that. You could feed your dogs their own dick and they would just get hungry for more.

Posted by: kingtut at March 15, 2004 03:54 PM

Jones,

You better be careful, your statements are very tin-foil-hat-esque. I never said a damn thing about lying.

I seem to remember that there were certain countries who lended either moral or financial support to the coalition, but wished to remain anonomous, presumably so as not to become the target of extremists/terrorists.

I’m not suggesting Bush is lying about this statement, (although, it is not beyond question, given the track record), but I don’t remember anyone seriously demanding that he reveal who these countries were before going forward with the war, and President Bush certainly didn’t betray their confidence in revealing them.

So, why do you demand the same of Kerry. Should Kerry lose, these countries would still have to work with the current regime. And what Kerry said is not that far-fetched. Remember, in the months before the war, European public opinion stated that Bush was a bigger threat to global stability than Sadam was. I don’t think it is that far-fetched that allies of the U.S. would want to deal with a government that wasn’t such a theat to their own political capital.

Posted by: Todd at March 15, 2004 04:36 PM

and Cap’n Doc,

You can expect that there will be at least a million more veterans who will be lining up to vote for Kerry because Bush has failed to provide funding for their medical, mental health, and substance abuse needs.

Posted by: Todd at March 15, 2004 04:45 PM

Wait a minute . . .

Isn’t Cheney fighting a case before the Supreme Court in an attempt to conceal the energy industry big-wigs who dictated the administration’s energy policy?

In my estimation, the voting public can forgive changing a stance on an issue for principled, or even political, reasons. Hypocracy is much less forgiveable.

Will someone PLEASE demonstrate to me this Rove guy’s supposed political genious.

Posted by: Todd at March 15, 2004 04:51 PM

“substance abuse needs?” Are you saying Bush won’t pay for their crack?

Posted by: billhedrick at March 15, 2004 04:53 PM

billhedrick,

your comments are shameful. See, some people who have seen the ugliest sights if human existance have become dependent upon a variety of substances, including crack, as a way to quash their demons, and some need help to rise above it and gain their life back.

So no, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying Bush’s concern for military personnel wanes when their service is no longer making his friends rich. And its disgusting.

Posted by: Todd at March 15, 2004 05:51 PM

“concern for military personnel wanes when their service is no longer making his friends rich.”

Oh, I’m the one with the tin foil hat?

Still waiting for Bush’s lies, per yur implication.

Posted by: jones at March 15, 2004 06:35 PM

It’s quite amusing hearing lefties backpedal faster than a backwards speeding bullet when asked for some truth to back up their hatred.

You lefties are filled with hatred and no substance. Emotion and no facts. So when you are called up to present facts to support your ‘implications’ and ‘assertions’ and ‘hatred’ what do you do?

“You better be careful, your statements are very tin-foil-hat-esque. I never said a damn thing about lying.”

“Wasn’t Bush allowed to say that there were some unnamed governments that joined, anonymously, the Iraq war coalition last year? Is there a principled distinciton between what Bush said and what Kerry said?”

“I’m not suggesting Bush is lying about this statement, (although, it is not beyond question, given the track record), but I don’t remember anyone seriously demanding that he reveal who these countries were before going forward with the war, and President Bush certainly didn’t betray their confidence in revealing them.”

Todd, Todd, Todd, Todd. Where in the hell is your evidence to suggest that President Bush never named any countries in support of our Coalition? By suggesting that you are implicating President Bush as a ‘Liar.’ Quit backpeddling and get a Freaken Clue! When people want to see some facts, you present those damn facts. Air Tight!

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 15, 2004 06:52 PM

BOSTON GLOBE reporter at the center of a growing controversy over comments made by John Kerry last week in Florida now claims he “screwed-up” — and John Kerry never bragged how “foreign leaders” privately backed his presidential bid!

“I mistranscribed a key word,” explains Patrick Healy, a political reporter for the BOSTON GLOBE who covered the event in a pool capacity.

“Listening to the audio recorder now, in the quiet of my house, I hear ‘more leaders’ and I am certain that ‘more leaders’ is what Senator Kerry said.”

http://www.drudgereport.com/kerrybo.htm

Posted by: Dody Gunawinata at March 15, 2004 09:38 PM

Now, to Sen. Kerry: “You mean I didn’t say that?”

Posted by: jimmy olson at March 15, 2004 10:51 PM

Todd Provide some links and numbers on those REDUCTIONS in benefits for Military and Veterans, please. Mine went up. :o)

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 15, 2004 11:01 PM

Exactly Cap’n DOC. I‘m callin’ Todd on that one. The govt is spending more….a lot more. I’ll go as far as to call Todd a phoney lying sob.

He must work for Kerry, socialist party, or the terroroists…. trying to spread bogus propaganda. How can he live with himself spreading lies to try and undermine his country? Could the terrorists and the socialists be paying him THAT much? Only a fu-kin’ monkey would do it for free. (I feel like I just tried to spread propaganda. It’s not true…..I’ve have never personally seen or heard of a fu-kin’ monkey backstabbing his own group. I personally apologize to any monkeys that might have been offended by being compared to Todd)

Posted by: Jeff B at March 15, 2004 11:38 PM

Now this should be interesting: will Kerry now deny that he said “foreign leaders” or insist that he did ?

Because, you know, there’s all that “I’m not going to tell you their names” business, when he was pestered to say who the foreign leaders were. If he didn’t say “foreign”, why didn’t he just say so …?

I suspect I know why…

Posted by: CERDIP at March 15, 2004 11:40 PM

I’ll bet it was HO! Oh. Right. Forgot. He’s dead.

How about - GrandFather Twilight! He’ll step up, I’m almost positive. Kerry would be more than willing to share a Bong with him… Oooops.

I mean, dang, those atrocious stories had to have been smoked up somewhere along the line.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 15, 2004 11:49 PM

Antony says “bush lies” Yet, I’ve only heard of one, which says “Islam is religion of peace”.

I suggest Anthony and the liars of democrat persuasion look up the word “LIE” and, try for once to TRUTHFULLY show Bush lies.

So, knowing that Bush didn’t lie, being a person of sound mind and reasoning, not guided by hate, I ask, why would ANY SANE PERSON would vote for a democrat, what all they did is LIE all year long, DECEIVE the public, for their political gain, and in the process, weaken the nation, for their greed of power.

Who really are the liars, Anthony?
Democrats!

Posted by: Fat Guy at March 16, 2004 02:36 AM

“I haven’t met with foreign leaders for any overthrow purpose,” Kerry responded. “I never said that. What I said was, that I have heard from people who are leaders elsewhere in the world, who don’t appreciate the Bush administration approach and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114241,00.html

Posted by: jones at March 16, 2004 06:35 AM

I wonder if the hippie Kerry inhaled?

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 16, 2004 10:33 AM

he inhaled.

“About 20 years ago, I tried marijuana,” Mr. Kerry said through a spokesman in 1990. “I didn’t like it. I have never used or tried any drug since.”

‘Yeah, I smoked pot when I came home from Vietnam,’ Kerry noted in a 2003 interview. ‘I didn’t mind getting high. I certainly enjoyed it. ‘

of all the things to flip flop on…

Posted by: wafflestomper at March 16, 2004 10:47 AM

Move on, rubes: show’s over:
http://www.drudgereport.com/kerrybo.htm

Next whine, please.

Posted by: GMT at March 16, 2004 11:48 AM

Todd, you are humor impaired. I weep for you.

Posted by: billhedrick at March 16, 2004 11:52 AM

GMT

See my 6:35 post and recheck the news. He is sticking to his “story” that he was urged on by foreign leaders.

Posted by: jones at March 16, 2004 01:02 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=694&u=/ap/20040316/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_14&printer=1

Although rube is a great word.

Posted by: jones at March 16, 2004 01:04 PM

http://www.drudgereport.com/kerrybo.htm

Above. Whether it’s Foreign Leaders or ‘More’ leaders it is the ‘context’ of what John Kerry said.

Look at the sentences around the use of MORE leaders:

“I’ve been hearing it, I’ll tell ya. The news, the coverage in other countries, the news in other places. I’ve met more leaders who can’t go out and say it all publicly, but boy they look at you and say, you gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy, things like that.”

Above. John Kerry is talking about ‘other countries’ which are ‘Foreign Countries’ and then he talks about ‘more leaders.’ The Context folks is that John Kerry is talking about MORE LEADERS from OTHER COUNTRIES.

Sheesh. Will someone said the Liberals back to an English Class?

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 16, 2004 01:35 PM

http://www.drudgereport.com/kerrybo.htm

Above. Whether it’s Foreign Leaders or ‘More’ leaders it is the ‘context’ of what John Kerry said.

Look at the sentences around the use of MORE leaders:

“I’ve been hearing it, I’ll tell ya. The news, the coverage in other countries, the news in other places. I’ve met more leaders who can’t go out and say it all publicly, but boy they look at you and say, you gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy, things like that.”

Above. John Kerry is talking about ‘other countries’ which are ‘Foreign Countries’ and then he talks about ‘more leaders.’ The Context folks is that John Kerry is talking about MORE LEADERS from OTHER COUNTRIES.

Sheesh. Will someone send the Liberals back to an English Class?

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 16, 2004 01:35 PM

The show is not over! John Kerry’s use of MORE LEADERS is still FOREIGN Leaders. No matter how you look at it because of the context of the speech:

“”I’ve been hearing it, I’ll tell ya. The news, the coverage in OTHER COUNTRIES, the news in OTHER PLACES. I‘ve met MORE LEADERS who can’t go out and say it all publicly, but boy they look at you and say, you gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy, things like that. So there is enormous energy out there. Tell them, whereever they can find an American abroad, they can contribute,”

What part of OTHER don’t these Liberals not understand?

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 16, 2004 01:38 PM

Cap’n DOC, ‘nam vets against Kerry support, all present and accounted for.

Posted by: Mike H. at March 16, 2004 03:17 PM

I have two apologies. First, I would have responded sooner, but I was on the road.

Second, it was factually inaccurate for me to say that Bush was claiming there were anonymous members of the Iraq coalition. It was Colin Powell speaking just before the U.S. led invasion last year. I trust you can all excuse my glossing over this subtle distinciton, given Bush’s use of Colin Powell to engender credibility that was otherwise lacking from his own mouth. In any event, here you go:

From the Associated Press March 18, 2003
WASHINGTON – As the United States moved closer to war with Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday that 30 nations have declared varying levels of support and 15 others have given their backing privately.
Most of the nations named by Powell would not have a combat role, but have allowed the United States to base troops on their soil and to let U.S. planes overfly their territory. Others have offered expertise in dealing with possible chemical weapons attacks”. We now have a coalition of the willing that includes some 30 nations who publicly said they could be included in such a listing,” Powell said, “and there are 15 other nations, for one reason or another, who do not wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the coalition.”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20030318-1144-powell.html

Here are other reports from CBS News and the BBC:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/18/iraq/main544517.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2862343.stm

A list of the coalition of the willing and suspected “silent members” can be found HERE:

http://www.crikey.com.au/politics/2003/03/21-coalitionlist.html

jones and Jeff MacMillan: you may email me your apologies to me, because I suspect your lack of integrity and blind devotion to the losing cause prevents you from doing so publicly. And again, I am not claiming or intimating that Powell or Bush lied about that support. I do find it amusing that you assumed this, though. (guilty concience?) I am suggesting Powell (and the administration he was the spokesperson for at the time) had principled reasons for not naming those countries who wished to remain anonymous and not betraying their trust. But you demand such action of Kerry. I have no doubt that if Kerry were to grant your and the administration’s wish, you would all scream in a fascist-like indignant pentameter that Kerry is not to be trusted with confidences of foreign dignitaries.

The point is, Bush is a hypocrite. In many ways, that is more policially damaging than being a lier. But by November, the trifecta of Bush’s personality will no doubt be laid bare: hypocrite, deciever, and moron. At least Bush is getting rich doing it. What is your motivation?

billhedrick: I weep for your lack of respect in suggesting all veterans are crack addicts. No, that’s not funny, and shame on you for suggesting otherwise.

Cap’n DOC First, you can apologize for claiming that I said “REDUCTIONS” in funding. What I said was that he has failed to provide the necessary funding. There is a difference.

Jeff B You’re callin me this one? Well, here you and Cap’n go: I remember hearing a piece on NPR.
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1701042
Sorry, the transcript will cost you a fee. Here is some free stuff that supports the attempted straw man statement you and the doc were accusing me of making:

This is testimony given before the VA subcommittee by Joel Streim, M.D., President, American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry on 4/10/2003:
Despite the increasing need for integrated mental health services and care coordination for older veterans, funding for VA mental health research, training, and services is falling dangerously behind. Given that the VA health care system has sustained deep cuts in its psychiatric and substance abuse programs, the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2004 budget proposal is inadequate.

http://www.aagponline.org/advocacy/testimony.asp?viewfull=14

If you want more information, you can look here:
http://www.psych.org/advocacy_policy/leg_res/apa_testimony/increasefund4vet.cfm
Here is an open letter to President Bush calling him to give real support his lip-service to veterans:
http://veterans.house.gov/democratic/officialcorr/bush11-12-02.htm and some statistics here: http://veterans.house.gov/democratic/press/106th/evanspr3-16-99.htm

So this makes me a phoney lying slob, a Kerry employee, socialist, and a terrorist, huh? Bogus propaganda, huh? Well, I am not a monkey, (although some evolutionist may debate that point) but I do believe a monkey would be a step up from what ever waste of grey matter existence you hail from.

You unprincipled twits, nitwits, and half-wits that think you have a monopoly on the truth are a leading indicator of why reasonable Americans will not join your bastardization of conservative ideals, and why we will turn in droves to Kerry because, despite his faults, he is the only alternative to the insanity offered up by the Republicans.

Posted by: Todd at March 16, 2004 04:56 PM

I never suggested what you say I did, you’re an idiot.

Posted by: billhedrick at March 16, 2004 05:03 PM

within two weeks of powell’s statement (march 27, 2003), the whitehouse submitted the following list of coalition members:

Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan
Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic
Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea
Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary
Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania
Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia
Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore
Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain
Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom
United States, Uzbekistan
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030327-10.html

let’s review the timeline
powell says 30 plus 15, fleischer takes all sorts of flack for powell’s statement, white house releases a list of at least 45 coalition members.

Wasn’t Bush allowed to say that there were some unnamed governments that joined, anonymously, the Iraq war coalition last year? Is there a principled distinciton between what Bush said and what Kerry said?

if within two weeks kerry hasn’t divulged a list of leaders, i suspect you will know the answer to the question, todd.

Posted by: wafflestomper at March 16, 2004 06:37 PM

What am I apologizing for? I made a reasonible inference, and called you on it.

Now where do you get hypocrite. I’m calling you there too.

What you say about Bill H is a lie. Show me the word ALL in his statement or remove it from yours.

Posted by: jones at March 16, 2004 07:03 PM

The point is, Bush is a hypocrite. In many ways, that is more policially damaging than being a lier. But by November, the trifecta of Bush’s personality will no doubt be laid bare: hypocrite, deciever, and moron.

aren’t you a moron for calling bush a lier and a deciever, and that in turn makes you the hypocrite?

no, the fact that you missed the point makes you a moron. you’re a hypocrite because you believe deception is republican trait.

Posted by: wafflestomper at March 16, 2004 07:07 PM

Kerry now has reporters wearin’ his flip-flops. He should apply for a Patent. :o)

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 16, 2004 07:40 PM

Todd can’t admit he’s wrong forget him he lost

Posted by: billHedrick at March 17, 2004 12:58 AM

Kerry, if he LIED should just sat=y so, OR, list these people he mingled with, how and where.
Then, we the people, can interview these people, and ask them why kerry, and what the reasons are, and what they want kerry to do that Bush won’t Etc.
This could be big.
Kerry f*cked up (yet again)

I WANT TO KNOW!!!!!
DAMN IT KERRY I WANT TO KNOW WHO WANTS YOU IN POWER< AND WHY AND WHAT HE WANTS!!

I KNOW NOW THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN SPAIN LOVES YOU!
IS THAT IT???
YOU WANT SOCIALIST COMMUNIST AMERICA???

IT MUST BE!! HE ENDORSEE YOU< AND SAID HE SPOKE TO YOU!!!!

DAMN COMMIE KERRY!!!

damn that guy is an ass. a Liar. A coward. spoon fed, kennedy worshiping wanna be ted coward.
kerry had a idolising fettish from youth that still drives him to this day. He belongs in a mental institution.
wil NNTK, and Anthony, and PTG, X,

Posted by: Fat Guy at March 17, 2004 03:19 AM

I know, I express myself too openly.
Unlike Doc, who has had this hate of kerry for 30 years, and held it it, I find this the time i can let those 30 years of hate out!
I HATE THE LYING BASTARD!
I really do. He lied, men died, and he dishonered evey fighting man in the USA, Canada, UK, Au, and every other fighting man that set foot in the effort.
As he is doing now.

Posted by: Fat Guy at March 17, 2004 03:27 AM

Simple question, how can the military support the coward WB. (Vietnam record)

AWAKE

Posted by: AWAKE at March 17, 2004 05:45 AM

What Vietnam record, you mean the lack of it.

Don’t worry about Kerry guys. People don’t vote a President in, they vote one out. Kerry won’t be voted in, it is Bush who will be voted out.
So no amount of cheap mud thrown at him or his wife will ever stick.

The incompetent and lying little Bush is doing the job on his own. And you know what I like doing with Bushes… f..k them.

The time is ripe for a change. America is waking up.

Truth

Posted by: Truth at March 17, 2004 05:53 AM

Cap’n said: Put up or shut up. On the LIES part. You ‘d better make it freakin’ air-tight, and you’d better support it with something other than your Left-wing Nut.

Sorry about that. Please don’t blow a gasket. I would feel terrible if anything happened to you. My Catholic upbringing. Let me clarify. I meant to say the Bush administration’s lies.

Posted by: Anthony at March 17, 2004 07:37 AM

Fat Guy I don’t hate the man. I hate the Sin. And he is guilty of those things which I and others have accused him of doing. So now (on thread), we once again have some commentors running down the President, when the topic is Kerry’s lies about ‘world leaders’, what they have said to him, and what he has or has not promised to them. Only now, even the reporter who originally quoted him is flip-floppin’, just as Kerry has done over a thirty year career of ‘public service’. Just because Truth and AWAKE use NICs that are the opposite of their true state, Kerry cannot be truthful about anything. It is not in him. If it sounds good he says it, and never ceases saying it until it no longer sounds good or becomes a liability to his personal agenda. This is 2004 guys, not 1984.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 17, 2004 07:45 AM

Cap’n: Put up or shut up. On the LIES part. You ‘d better make it freakin’ air-tight, and you’d better support it with something other than your Right-wing Nut.

Posted by: Anthony at March 17, 2004 07:46 AM

Actually Awake has a point.

Why are we so blindly supporting Bush? Is he such a great guy?
And why are we so readily hating Kerry?

If it is because Bush is the current Commander in Chief then when Kerry is elected President we will support him as blindly.

Perhaps we should have a touch of healthy cynicism towards all our politicians whatever party they represent and refrain from the very extreme views we criticise our enemies for.

The world is not black and white, it’s more like a mosaic of greys.

But sorry to have interrupted your mud slinging.
Please do resume.

Josh

Josh

Posted by: Josh at March 17, 2004 08:20 AM

Actually, Josh, there’s a lot more substance than is readily apparent.

Bush’s record, the one that counts, is his record as President. Don’t like what he’s done, that matters. Like what he’s done, that matters.

Kerry’s situation is a little more unclear. He has a Senate record, but he’s generally liberal, except on high profile choices, where he manages to flip almost every time. That matters, because we have a right to know what we’d get if he’s elected. Kerry rants against Bush (ironic that Kerry decries negative and “attack” tactics, given that he has spent MONTHS doing nothing but personal and non-issue attacks on Bush, calling him “insane”, “out-of-control”, and “f—-ed up” in public statements), but has never given specifics on his core policies. His inability to take a position and hold it, is a legitimate question. It’s also troubling that while Bush HAS answered some tough questions, avery time Kerry gets a tough question, he calls it an attack and falls back on his rhetoric.

More and more, Kerry’s biggest problem is himself.

Posted by: GDubya at March 17, 2004 11:04 AM

awake, josh
do you guys really think that the military would ever not support its cic? that would be a pretty bad development in my opinion. bottom line is that the military had better support the president, regardless of whose party has the presidency.

Posted by: wafflestomper at March 17, 2004 11:16 AM

Josh,

Thanks for a voice of reason and rationality.

For the rest of you:

I raised a legitimate question: wasn’t Bush allowed to keep some diplomatic secrets. And wafflestomper, to his credit, gave the reasoned and correct answer: Yes, he tried to, but he got called on it and relented.

I hope he had principled reasons for doing so and consulted the countries and they gave their permission to release their identity. His insatiable desire to commence the war ASAP leaves some doubt. If he did not consult, it could explain this poll release yesterday:

Opinion of U.S. Abroad Is Falling, Survey Finds
Majorities Doubt War in Iraq Is Quelling Terrorism ,

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 17, 2004; Page A22

A year after the invasion of Iraq, anti-American views have hardened in Europe and in Muslim countries, where lopsided majorities oppose President Bush and are suspicious of U.S. motives, according to a new nine-country opinion poll.

The survey, the largest of its kind, found slipping support for the U.S. war on terrorism in Europe and negative views of the United States in all foreign countries polled except Britain. Big majorities said that the United States does not consider other countries’ interests and that Europe should develop more diplomatic and military independence.

The nonpartisan Pew Research Center, which conducted the survey, said the image of the United States in the world has never polled lower.

(from today’s washington post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64388-2004Mar16.html)

The rest of you are so blinded by your hatred for Kerry that you indignantly claimed, “How dare I suggest that Bush did the exact same thing that Kerry did.” Well, nitwits, he did. And none of you will admit it.

I will admit that I was hasty on calling Bush a hypocrite on this score. So very well, I retract that statement. However, I replace it with this one. The administration’s self-righteous indignation is unjustified. And McClellan’s comments suggesting Kerry made his statements up was highly unfair.

And, yes, I over exaggerated the crack statement to make a point about the level of my disgust. No, bill did not use the word ALL, but he did refer to veterans in the collective “their crack.” And I find it astounding that you neocons that claim to love your country would come to the aid of a person besmirching veterans and their service-connected needs just to play a game of grab-ass “catch-as-catch-can” with someone who had the audacity to raise a legitimate question.

In the global war on terror, we need the support of other countries. Bush’s policies, and more particularly the manner in which they are presented and carried out, are undermining that support.

My confidence in the credibility of this forum as a place for reasoned debate is waning. Perhaps you all would rather be left to your delusions of grandeur.

Posted by: Todd at March 17, 2004 11:44 AM

I don’t think Kerry lied. It is obvious that many foreign leaders are uncomforatable with Mr Bush’s, ‘your either with me or against me’ brand of foreign policy. And certainly the President’s predilicaton for running rough’shot over international institutions isn’t going to endear him to leaders who depend upon those institutions to compete in the world. I’m not sure if this was a mistake or whether was looking for free air-time. At first I thought it was a mistake. We’ll see.

Bush’s attempt this morning to create the appearance of support of world leaders backfired when put the Prime Minister of the Netherlands on the spot.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Candidate Kerry has suggested he has support of world leaders. Do you think he should — that should be a factor in the campaign? Was that an appropriate thing for him to say?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I think it’s — if you’re going to make an accusation in the course of a presidential campaign, you ought to back it up with facts.

When Bush throws the ball in the PM’s court, he responds

PRIME MINISTER BALKENENDE: I won’t talk about that issue.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Okay, fine.

PRIME MINISTER BALKENENDE: It has to do with the campaign here in the United States.

Posted by: Anthony at March 17, 2004 01:20 PM

Todd There are LEGITIMATE reasons why we ought to be asking Senator Kerry just exactly who said what to whom, and just exactly why some ‘Foreign Leaders’ would be applauding his election. Just exactly what has he said that has enamored them (if indeed, he has spoken to any of them), and if he did not speak to any of them, was he not lying? The reporter who quoted him, and Senator Kerry himself cannot agree upon just EXACTLY what it was that came out of his mouth. How is it that YOU know what was said or not said? I don’t mind reasoned debate, and I am getting used to seeing the veiled Bush-hatred from the likes of more than one troll. You have some skill at WordSmithing, but I would suggest the next time you decide to use ‘crack’, you do it in the privacy of your own forum. You come here and diss on ME, you’re goin’ to get more than an earful. MOF, why don’t you just apologize for suggesting I’m a crackhead, and promise not to make such statements again? I don’t mind debate, but your little turds are beginning to aggravate me.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 17, 2004 01:25 PM

Anthony Drop the word ‘obvious’. One of those BSflags I see that means you’re pushin’ the envelope of believability. What I do take from your little story here is that (1) You believe President Bush has run ‘roughshod’ over ‘international institutions. Name 1. (2) The Prime Minister of the Netherlands is not even in a ‘Long group’ of ‘Foreign Leaders’ who may or may not be happy with our current foreign policy objectives. (3) Senator Kerry, his advisors and even the very journalist who QUOTED Senator Kerry cannot agree on whether or not Senator Kerry said any such thing. As usual, He’s either wearin’ a Flip or a Flop, and so is everyone else associated with his little FauxPas. (4)YOU don’t think he lied? Do you think he lied 30 years when he claimed that atrocities were routine in VN? Would that be a lie?
Come on, Anthony… You’re more intelligent than that. This business of whether or no Senator Kerry LIED about talking to ‘Foreign Leaders’, or ‘Some Leaders’, or ‘No Leaders’ is very small potatoes.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 17, 2004 02:00 PM

whether true or not, i think kerry makes a mistake in saying what he did. combine a statement where he says he has support of other nations with a statement like:

“What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States” april 3, 2003

and it starts to make you a little sick as in ‘what kind of coalition is he putting together?’

taking a large view of the issue, we are talking about foreign policy. if kerry has ideas that foreign leaders are jumping up and down for, aren’t we as the american voter also entitled to hear these ideas? put in this context, why would it be so hard to name the leaders? just list the ideas that are mutually beneficial and the foreign support would be understandable.

another difference in powell (bush admin) not revealing countries in the coalition are the circumstances surrounding statement. at the time powell made his statement, the build up for war was occuring. (caution: a bunch of hypotheticals coming up) if turkey/iran/syria had offered use of its air space to attack iraq, it would have been in the best interest of the u.s. military (us! not only them) not to make this known prior to the invasion. additionally, had there been no other countries in the coalition except the known 30, it keeps the enemy guessing which again wuold have been strategically advantageous for us. there just isn’t the same freedom of press in a time of war (or pre-war as it were). the war had already started before the white house released their list - perhaps not because of pressure by the media (although there was) but because there was little more to gained in maintaining the secrecy. in this regard, kerry’s secrecy cannot be compared to the bush admin’s secrecy.

Posted by: wafflestomper at March 17, 2004 02:01 PM

Cap’n DOC,

Exactly my point. I was suggesting veterans were being mistreated, billhedric intimated that veterans use their benefits to buy crack, which I extrapolated to suggest he was calling veterans crackheads, which comments were disgusting. From this, you attack me for refering to veterans as crackheads. Your not-so-veiled hatred of anything Kerry or liberal is clouding your judgement.

But back on topic, Bush is so fearful that what Kerry said is true, and based upon my the poll in my early post, it no doubt is true, that he has to draw attention away from his failed international diplomacy and attempt to cast Kerry as a liar. Its pathetic.

Posted by: Todd at March 17, 2004 02:12 PM

Todd I’m about through dealing with YOUR obfuscation. - ‘…and substance abuse needs.’ Posted by Todd at March 15, 2004 04:45 PM

That your NIC or ain’t it? Don’t be blaming your spewage on billhedrick.

I read the freakin’ thread, and I read it right the first time. Now, apologize or be ignored.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 17, 2004 02:41 PM

OK, here’s the reason for my crack (no pun intended). I am a bit of a stickler on the correct use of language. “Rallies for Sexual Abuse” “substance abuse needs” really sounds to me like rallies/needs to SUPPORT them. My joke was this: use language correctly. I meant nothing more than a lightening of tone. I did not intinmate that veterans use their benefits to buy crack, I simply used your words in the most logical sense in order to be funny. I often assume too much sense and ability for self-deprecation. I am sorry I made that assumption about you.

Posted by: billhedrick at March 17, 2004 03:18 PM

““I’m not suggesting Bush is lying about this statement, (although, it is not beyond question, given the track record), …”

“I’m not suggesting Bush is lying about this statement, (although, it is not beyond question, given the track record), …”

TODD If you are reading this. ABOVE is a direct quote of what you said. THAT is part and parcel why I believe you were trying to say that Bush is a liar.

I expect an apology from you and I expect it in public. Now. If I was wrong… then yes. I would apologize to you TODD in public. But, I am not wrong. Want to see yourself again?

“I’m not suggesting Bush is lying about this statement, (although, it is not beyond question, given the track record)…

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 17, 2004 03:30 PM

Todd,

“The administration’s self-righteous indignation is unjustified. And McClellan’s comments suggesting Kerry made his statements up was highly unfair.”

When John Kerry himself asserts a statement and the American People hear it. The American People who are expected to vote for John Kerry are expected to at least know ‘SOMETHING’ of what John Kerry Asserts.

Todd. You started this whole thing about how President Bush never revealed what Coalition Countries supported us. I believe it was MARK that released the LINK that shows that President Bush did indeed reveal no less than 45 Countries that supported us.

We have the transcript of Bush’s speech 2003, Stat of the Union Speech, and President Bush lists up a good number of countries.

We have not heard from John Kerry a single PEEP about what Leader supports Kerry.

And JOSH? Where do you get off accusing conservatives who support President Bush as ‘Blindly’ supporting him? A lot of us are pissed off with President Bush because he grew the domestic agenda. We are ‘appauled’ and ‘upset’ by that.

However. In a presidential election. When we have 2 choices from 2 major political parties. A choice must be made. When that choice is President Bush = Keep the Tax Cuts permanent and John Kerry = Increased Spending along with Raising Taxes.

Did you know that Arizona has the lowest tax rate? And at the same time Arizona has the lowest unemployment rate? You can look that up, it’s true.

History shows that the lower taxes are then the more JOBS are created. We are sitting in an ‘Economic Boom’ while John Kerry is calling our ‘Economic Boom’ a ‘failed Economy.’

I’m getting phone calls from companies wanting to hire out people now. I am getting e-mails. I am seeing a huge sign out there that a lot of businesses are now hiring like crazy. Why can’t John Kerry tell the truth about the Economy? If he expects us to vote for him?

As an American Citizen… Like Cedge Brown who was asked, “Who did you vote for, who did you vote for? I want an answer! Thank You!” only because Cedge Brown asked John Kerry if he could name a Foreign Leader in suppport of him.

And what on earth is that about anyhow? Why is JOHN KERRY concerned about ‘Foreign Leaders’ supporting him and not concerned about American Citizens support of him?

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 17, 2004 03:48 PM

Cap’n: I agree that this is small potatoes. Please note that recently the President put out an add claiming that Kerry proposed legislation in 1994 to cut the budget of the intel community by 1/2 billion dollars. The ad states the Kerry would gut intel at a time just after we were attack (93 WTC). The cut was part of a deficit redction package. The legislation didn’t pass. Recently when Tenet was asked about the loss of 500 million, he agreed that it would not gut the intel.

It turns out that later that year under a new bill, the intel budget was cut by far more than the 1/2 billion with republican support. This ad is an example of Bush deception (lies). It was design to portray Kerry as weak on National Defense.

Posted by: Anthony at March 17, 2004 04:42 PM

The call to have Kerry reveal the name of countries that support him is plainly designed to politically embarrass him. There is no way he will reveal who he has spoken to nor should he and you all knows why. The question is how will play to his base and to the swing vote.

Posted by: Anthony at March 17, 2004 04:48 PM

Anthony,

Please enlighten us why John Kerry can’t even tell us what ‘CONTINENT’ the foreign leaders in support of him are from? He can’t even say what ‘HEMISPHERE.’

It is absolutely unfair to not even receive a single ‘hint’ or ‘clue’ that would at least remotely let us know his assertion is true.

American people want to know who those leaders are or at least a basic hint of it. What is so wrong about that? Silence speaks Volumes when it comes to credibility.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 17, 2004 04:54 PM

When President Bush was accused of being ‘AWOL’ what did President Bush do in response? He released his payroll records and then he released 300 pages of documents that are the complete history of his time served and time payed for serving.

When John Kerry is asked a simple question about who he belives in support of him. John Kerry just basically tells Cedge Brown to shut up.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 17, 2004 04:57 PM

Jeff, you are king of the nitwits and a fraud.

The quote you found states “I am not suggesting Bush is lying.”

I was saying that in response to Jones’ demand for documentable lies. I was suggesting the existence of a double standard. And the portion about whether Bush is liar not being beyond question was to set that aside as a topic for another debate.

but here is what you said:

Todd, Todd, Todd, Todd. Where in the hell is your evidence to suggest that President Bush never named any countries in support of our Coalition? By suggesting that you are implicating President Bush as a ‘Liar.’ Quit backpeddling and get a Freaken Clue! When people want to see some facts, you present those damn facts. Air Tight!

You are a fraud because I did not say Bush “never named any countries in support of our coalition.” I asked the question whether Bush was “allowed to say that there were some unnamed governments that joined, anonymously, the coalition.” That, as I have proven with airtight facts, was a statement given by the Bush administration through Colin Powell (and I did apologize for attributing it solely to Bush). Yes, that statement was corrected by the White House two weeks later AFTER THE WAR HAD ALREADY BEGUN.

So, I am not willing to concede that there is a lack of a double standard, but I will admit that it is not as blatant as I had initially suggested. BUT, you NITWITS, that was why I asked it in the form of a question. I was looking for an answer to a legitimate question, and the response I got was a ‘How dare you’ accuse Bush of doing eactly what, as it turns out, he, through Sec. Powel, did.

Moreover, it seems everyone ignored my other question, so here it is again. Can any of you come up with principled reasons why Cheney should be allowed to have energy industry big wigs dictate energy policy in a shroud of secrecy, but Kerry, who very well could be the head of state in a little over ten months, cannot have conversations in confidence with foreign dignitaries? Is there any doubt that there are some foreign leaders whose cooperation we seek who would rather not have to deal with Bush? That is the truth of the matter, and the White House is scrambling to obfuscate that fact with ad hominem character attacks.

Furthermore, what would the Bush administration do if Kerry did reveal his sources? There is a Medicare actuary who’s job was threatened because he had the audacity to say Bush’s prescription drug benefit numbers were grossly understated that might have an opinion. There is also a CIA operative whose identity was revealed to that unprincipled blow-hard Novack because her husband revealed the administration’s deception about Nigerian uranium myths who might have an opinion.

You people want to stifle debate, ignore facts, create straw men, and make ad hominem character attacks. And I am calling it for what it is: weak. Plain and simple.

Posted by: todd at March 17, 2004 05:06 PM

Todd - You become even more evasive… Why do they play football games? Basketball? Why do we have elections? Why don’t we just do a freakin’ poll and by default, the guy with the most percentage points gets the ball?
Why can we ask Senator Kerry which foreign leaders he has consulted with and will be happy when he wins in November? Because he ain’t been elected, you dolt! He may be (as he attempted to do with the VN POWs) looking for leverage for programs that he can’t support NOW, or in the future. It is a royal disaster that this guy would be making promises he cannot possibly keep. So. Why is he not being forthright? Could it be that he is looking for some campaign finance funds of the ‘non-partisan’ variety? Get a grip, Todd. I ain’t stupid and neither are you or anyone else who can devote the time to exchanging our views here. I didn’t just fall of the TurnipTruck.

And Todd - Valerie Plame was outted by her own Husband!

BTW - ‘I am calling it for what it is: weak. Plain and simple.’ That would be your argument you are addressing here, right?

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 17, 2004 05:37 PM

Jeff: Please enlighten us why John Kerry can’t even tell us what ‘CONTINENT’ the foreign leaders in support of him are from? He can’t even say what ‘HEMISPHERE.’

Are you going to call me a traitor again? A terrorist supporter or some other derogatory if I don’t give you the right answer again? If so, I’m not interested.

Doc & Jeff: Silence speaks Volumes when it comes to credibility.

In 2000, after McCain won New Hampsire by 18%, the Bush surrogates in South Carolina unleashed a campaign of lies, that trashed McCain. Bush was silent on the matter. What does that silience say about Bush?

Posted by: Anthony at March 17, 2004 05:43 PM

And Todd - Valerie Plame was outted by her own Husband!

Oh my God! Were did you get that! Quick Doc, get that info over to Justice. There spending millions of our hard-earned tax dollars chasing the wind!

Posted by: Anthony at March 17, 2004 05:46 PM

“was a ‘How dare you’ accuse Bush of doing eactly what, as it turns out, he, through Sec. Powel, did.”

Todd. He did not. Your own words say he did not.

Those 2 weeks our Administration was setting up to start the war to remove Saddam Hussein. The relesae of the countries HAPPENED! And it did so in 2 weeks even though we had a war to plan out and get ready to start.

If you remember about what things happened during that war? The start of the war happened before anyone thought it would because we got a huge tip that Saddam was sitting in a bunker.

There was an AWFUL lot going on that needed our administrations attention.

You are complaining about a ‘2 weeks delay.’
(WE) are complaining about John Kerry ‘OUT RIGHT REFUSING.’

There’s a big difference! And can’t expect anyone to give you everything you want immediately. Not at a time of war. But, that is not what we are asking John Kerry (who isn’t at a time of war and crisis) to do. We are simply asking him to reveal some names and we have asked this of him for over a week maybe 2 weeks now.

And instead of any kind of hint that John Kerry is going to tell us something. All we get is the Cedge Brown deal where John Kerry says, “Who did you vote for? Who did you vote for? I want an answer. Thank you!”

Oh and by the way Todd. Thanks for ‘SNIPPING’ your quote.

Your full quote is agian: “I’m not suggesting Bush is lying about this statement, (although, it is not beyond question, given the track record), …”

So.. I’m still waiting for an apology here.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 17, 2004 05:54 PM

‘In 2000, after McCain won New Hampsire by 18%, the Bush surrogates in South Carolina unleashed a campaign of lies, that trashed McCain. Bush was silent on the matter. What does that silience say about Bush?”

The campaign in question… the ‘lies’ you describe as far as I know there has been no evidence that President Bush was involved nor his campaign.

If you can point out the evidence that he was involved in those attack then please do. I would like to hear it.

And again we already discussed what happened and I am not so sure it was as ‘bad’ as you describe. I mean? President Bush gets called a ‘AWOL’ by the had of the DNC. I am not going to DUCK TAPE the mouth of the head of the DNC. If he wishes to say that… he can say that. But, I will attack his credibility for saying it.

As far as I understand some ‘people’ whom we have no idea who called up ‘people’ and said, “What do you think about John McCain having a Black Daughter?”

Now.. If John McCain does indeed have an adopted black daughter. Than this statement isn’t even a lie. It’s the truth. ANd if you can find evidence that BUSH says this… You better also find evidence that this was a ‘lie.’

Again Anthony. You Liberal’s love changing the subject don’t you? Rather than addressing the questions?

“Are you going to call me a traitor again? A terrorist supporter or some other derogatory if I don’t give you the right answer again? If so, I’m not interested.”

I see. Let’s use the ‘MY FEEWINGS Are HURT’ excuse instead of addressing my questions.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 17, 2004 06:02 PM

O.K., I‘ll take the bait:

Cap’n Doc, support the Valerie Plame assertion you made with links. Air tight. (Drudge Report and its right-wing propaganda ilk do not count).

And I think my “weak” comment is best directed at your inability to address my Cheney energy policy disclosure question. They are fighting that one to the Supremes. Any response?

I can’t decipher the rest of your comment. Perhaps you are experiencing the frustration of realizing that the world is a lot different when you take of the rose-colored glasses.

Posted by: Todd at March 17, 2004 06:02 PM

“I can’t decipher the rest of your comment. Perhaps you are experiencing the frustration of realizing that the world is a lot different when you take of the rose-colored glasses.”

How amusing coming from someone that can’t even ‘read’ what he writes.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 17, 2004 06:05 PM

Jeff,

You speculate about the reasons why it took two weeks for the Bush administration to release the 15 unnamed governements, yet you demand my assertions are supported by air tight links, which I provided. Hypocrite.

But since speculation is fair game, I think the disclosure came after changed circumstances and investigative reporting ameliorated some governements disclosure concerns, and the administration did a lot of begging for consent. Maybey, some of the countries that ended up on the list of 45 did not include some of the original 15 that were unnamed. You ever think of that? The white house never said they were naming the 15 that Powell refered to; they just made damn sure they had a list of 45. What is your point?

You accuse Anthony of changing the subject. What about my Cheny energy policy disclosure question. Hypocrite.

You are unable to see the juxtaposition of what I was claiming in my statement from what I was not claiming in my parenthetical. Nitwit.

Posted by: Todd at March 17, 2004 06:17 PM

The campaign in question… the ‘lies’ you describe as far as I know there has been no evidence that President Bush was involved nor his campaign.

Now you changed the subject didn’t you. I asked you what his silence says.

I see. Let’s use the ‘MY FEEWINGS Are HURT’ excuse instead of addressing my questions.

Fellings hurt isn’t the issue is it. It’s whether you are really interested in debating the issue or engaging in more name calling. Which is it. When you are short on facts do you engage in insults? You want to discuss facts that fine.

As far as addressing the question of why Kerry isn’t can’t tell who is supporting him, the answer to the question is obvious. You really can’t see why or are you just trying to bait me?

Posted by: Anthony at March 17, 2004 06:19 PM

Todd: Mister airtight ain’t going to bit.

Posted by: Anthony at March 17, 2004 06:19 PM

If John McCain does indeed have an adopted black daughter.

He has I believe an Indonesian daughter. But the comments were to the effect “John McCain fathered an illegitimate black daughter” coutesy of a Bob Jones professor.

Posted by: Anthony at March 17, 2004 06:23 PM

And you are a fraud:

Here you suggest that a statement (which I nenver made) was the reason for you intimating I called bush a liar:

Where in the hell is your evidence to suggest that President Bush never named any countries in support of our Coalition? By suggesting that you are implicating President Bush as a ‘Liar.’

Then, you say it was my statement where I specifically stated that I was not suggesting that Bush was lying, although such an assertion could be made (which, as it turns out historically was in fact true). Fraud fraud fraud.

Posted by: Todd at March 17, 2004 06:24 PM

Todd Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, and was listed in Who’s Who (by her husband) for working for same. Look it up. Nitwit? I don’t think so.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 17, 2004 06:28 PM

Cap’n Doc.

Yes, I think so. There is a qualitative difference between the information leaked by the White House and the mere fact that she worked for the CIA. Nitwit.

What about my citations to the DECREASE in funding for veteran mental health and substance abuse programs? I guess you just figure you got yours, who cares about the others? Is that right?

Still waiting for the response to Cheney energy policy disclousre request.

Posted by: Todd at March 17, 2004 06:34 PM

why can’t kerry have conversations with foreign dignitaries?

depends on what they talk about. how do you define subversion? what do you suppose the u.s. first talked to saddam about 30 plus years ago? what did we discuss with the shah? we meddled in other countries’ affairs. hypocritical or not, we don’t need other countries meddling in our affairs. if kerry had met with foreign dignitaries from north korea or china, what kind of promises or assurances would you be comfortable with him making? how do you know that kerry hasn’t offered a nonaggression treaty to nk or automatic ntr (most favored nation) to china? what did you think when jesse jackson was going to go to afghanistan on his own to negotiate a peace deal with the taliban? should we have made peace with the taliban?

why should the energy policy discourse be kept private? let’s see now, how does the left treat halliburton and for what reason?

Posted by: wafflestomper at March 17, 2004 06:53 PM

Halliburton? Really? That’s all you got?

News flash. It aint the left that is revealing Halliburton as frauds: its the Pentagon:

Pentagon Won’t Pay Halliburton $300M
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: March 17, 2004

Filed at 6:42 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon plans to withhold about $300 million in payments to Halliburton Co. because of possible overcharging for meals served to troops in Iraq and Kuwait, defense officials said Wednesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Halliburton-Iraq.html

I agree with you on a fundamental point. Kerry should not be negotiating deals with foreign governments. But neither should he have to wait until he wins the election to foster diplomatic relations. He does, after all, have U.S. Senator credentials and the attendant rights to speak with foreign dignitaries, granted without undermining the state department or violating any other rules of protocol. That is a legitimate cocern. But that is not what McClellan said. He said Kerry had to name the countries or he was making it up. That is a false dichotomy.

Posted by: Todd at March 17, 2004 07:08 PM

Who said Kerry is negoitating deals. All anyone needs to know is Kerry’s POV. Is a unilateralist or a multilateralist. Does he believe in building international institutions or tearing them down. Is he nationalist or an internationalist. How does he feel about global warming. What kind of music does he listen to. What’s his sign. Is he into Pritikin or Atkins. See what I mean?

Posted by: Anthony at March 17, 2004 09:56 PM

Anthony That’s some real high-brow stuff there. I’ll bet he’s a DeadHead.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 17, 2004 09:58 PM

Todd That’s sweet of you to call me a nitwit. How could you? What else do you have in your WordArsenal? Heh.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 17, 2004 10:01 PM

Cap’n: I see you have chosen to remain silent on this issue. Here is some more food for thought.

From WAPO: In terms of accuracy, the parry by the president is about half right. Bush is correct that Kerry on Sept. 29, 1995, proposed a five-year, $1.5 billion cut to the intelligence budget. But Bush appears to be wrong when he said the proposed Kerry cut — about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget for those years — would have “gutted” intelligence. In fact, the Republican-led Congress that year approved legislation that resulted in $3.8 billion being cut over five years from the budget of the National Reconnaissance Office — the same program Kerry said he was targeting.

Please note the first sentence says “In terms of accuracy, the parry by the president is about half right.”

What’s wrong with this liberal rag. The liberal press lying in favor of a conservative. Bush wasn’t even half right. What are they up to?

Posted by: Anthony at March 17, 2004 10:18 PM

Cap’n Doc,

still waiting . . .

Posted by: Todd at March 17, 2004 10:19 PM

Todd wrote,

“You speculate about the reasons why it took two weeks for the Bush administration to release the 15 unnamed governements, yet you demand my assertions are supported by air tight links, which I provided. Hypocrite.”

I wasn’t speculating anything. I was merely commenting on what you yourself wrote,

“Yes, that statement was corrected by the White House two weeks later AFTER THE WAR HAD ALREADY BEGUN.”

You are calling me a hypocrite for speculating? I was merely using what YOU said yourself to explain a simple concept to you.

John Kerry = REFUSED

President Bush = Told America a large list of Countries that wasn’t complete for whatever reasons at the time.

Colon Powell = NEVER REFUSED. It took 2 weeks but he released the full list that was completed.

You can’t even read what you write! Todd. You said the list was released after the war was already started. Well. I was just commenting on the fact that people were asking for the list during a 2 weeks time period in which the war occurs in the midst of it. That was the only intent of my post. If I did not make that clear then I apologize.

Unlike you I can admit if I am wrong. If I did not make myself clear and went too far in interpreting YOUR WORDS.. then fine. Sorry.

Now let’s see you apologize… I doubt it will happen because you would be the ‘FIRST’ Liberal in American History that has ever admitted he was wrong when he was wrong.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 17, 2004 10:48 PM

Anthony,

I simply can not find this bill on Lexis Nexus. Is this the bill?

A BILL To reduce the deficit.
SEPTEMBER 29, 1995

“b) DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY.-The assumptions included in the conference
report on House Concurrent Resolution 67 with respect to reductions in
defense discretionary spending shall be assumed to include the following:
(1) Limit defense spending in fiscal year 1996 to $244,000,000,000,
in fiscal year 1997 to $241,000,000,000, in fiscal year 1998 to
$248,000,000,000, in fiscal year 1999 to $254,000,000,000, and in
fiscal year 2000 to $261,000,000,000.
(2) Terminate production of Trident D5 submarine launched ballistic
missiles after 1996.
(3) Phase out over five years the equivalent of two Army light
divisions.
(4) Deny unemployment compensation to service members who
voluntarily leave the service.
(5) Close the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences,
with the last class admitted in 1995 and all activities halted on
that class’ graduation in 1999.
(6) Rather than replacing or revitalizing existing Department of
Defense Housing Stock, increase reliance on private-sector housing
for military families by making service personnel eligible for a cash
housing allowance regardless of whether they live inDepartment of Defense or private-sector units and charging market-driven
rent for Department of Defense housing.
(7) Reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million in each of
fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.

Oh there’s plenty more on this bill. This is certainly not ‘THE EXACT SAME THING’ The Republican Congress was set out to do.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 17, 2004 11:22 PM

You were looking for Kerry’s bill or the Republican bill?

Posted by: Anthony at March 17, 2004 11:27 PM

Further analsys Anthony and it appears I have the full text of John Kerry’s bill. The post before this one shows a small sample of it.

John Kerry’s bill slashes and cuts so many things it makes your head spin. It doesn’t just limit or cut things George W. Bush elder wanted. Nor does it simply slash what you wanted. There’s more than a dozen defense related slashings.

Some are absolutely crazy!

But yes. I do need Republican’s Bill now.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 18, 2004 12:07 AM

****Kerry Refuses To Reveal Which Foreign Leaders Support Him****

At least until their checks clear.

Posted by: Jeff B at March 18, 2004 02:34 AM

Todd Still waitin’ for what? Your argument to get handed to you on a platter? What an electrifyin’ development.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 18, 2004 07:47 AM

Todd Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Take too much Energy to type this morning?

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 18, 2004 09:32 AM

Jeff M. Let’s clarify some things.

First, if you will review this thread, you will see I have apologized at least four times and retracted one statement that was, as I admitted, hasty and not completely fair. (It is you who cannot read what I have written.) However, the underlying point I was making still valid, to wit, the administration’s position on Kerry’s statement demonstrates a double standard. Perhaps not as clear-cut as I had originally intimated, but it exists nonetheless.

I will admit that my statement—that the listing of all countries supporting the coalition was released two weeks after the start of the war—could be interpreted in a variety of ways. So I grant you a valid point. But not so fast, you are not off the hook.

This is what I meant by that statement, which I admit was not self-evidently clear: The administration was using the statement ‘The coalition is large’ (or some variety thereof) as partial justification to the American people and the world for going to war against Iraq. Well, by the time they got around to releasing the names of 45 countries and giving support to the original statement, the war had already begun. In other words, the action had already been taken before the statement providing support for the action was verified.

This is the equivalent of Kerry naming the foreign dignitaries he met after he wins the presidency. Here is the parallel: Kerry said the statement as justification that he should be voted president. If he followed the administration’s demonstrated standard, he would not be obligated to divulge their identities until after the election. Granted, Kerry is outright refusing to divulge those names, and the double standard is not as clear cut as I had initially intimated. For that I have already apoligized. But I still believe the double standard is there.

I called you a hypocrite because you speculated that the reason the administration waited two weeks was because they were, in effect, busy. I said two weeks; I did not say busy. That’s your inference supported by speculation. Take responsibility for it. Not an irrational or unjustifiable speculation, but a speculation nonetheless. My objection is that you demanded “air tight” links to my statements, but you would not provide such links to yours. That makes you a hypocrite and I will not apologize for that statement. I have no doubt that the administration was busy. They were running headstrong to commence a war before they had made the case to the American people and the rest of the world, and the case they did make was flawed. That is my biggest gripe with this administration’s handling of the war, and it always has been.

I think you are ignoring my other point: the administration never said, “here are the 15 countries that Colin Powell referred to as unnamed governments.” Powell said there were 30 named and 15 unnamed countries. Then the administration came out with a list of 45 countries two weeks later. I suspect that there was at least one country on the administration’s list of 45 after the commencement of the war that was not on Powell’s list of 15 of silently supporting the coalition before the war commenced. But that is my speculation and I can’t prove it. It would not mean that Powell was lying, necessarily, but that the administration did not give full support for the statement it made. Hence the double standard. This is certainly as plausible as your explanation. You assign benevolent motives; I am more skeptical, based on my perceptions of a pattern of deception, intimidation, hypocrisy, and ethical and moral depravity. Simply a difference of viewpoints.

I will not even ask you for an apology, because my experience with neocons parallels your alleged experience with liberals. (Incidentally, I can’t prove you wrong that a liberal has never apologized, because despite my four apologies in this thread I am not, at least in strict-constructionalist or technical sense, a liberal.)

Cap’n Doc

I am waiting for your response (and an apology) on two matters, which your comments have conveniently ignored.

First, you demanded a link to support the statement (which I did not make) that funding for veterans mental health and substance abuse programs has DECREASED. Nevertheless, I gave you exactly that link, and you remain silent. What does that say of your integrity?

Second, I asked for a principled distinction between Cheney’s attempts to protect the secrecy of his development of the administration’s energy policy by inviting energy industry big wigs to the white house to dictate that policy. They are outright refusing to release that information and, in fact, are arguing before the Supreme Court and doing some apparent lobbying of at least one Justice thereof.

And I am accusing you of being weak for your demonstrated failure to respond to these matters forthrightly. It seems you have some time on your hands. Go back and look at this thread. You will see it is all there.

Posted by: Todd at March 18, 2004 10:44 AM

Oh, here’s a nice article from Talking Points Memo:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_03_14.html#002710

As you know, it’s now been revealed that the White House threatened the top government Medicare actuary that he’d be fired if he revealed the
Advertisement

The New Republic

Today on TNR.com:
Bull Run
by Eliot Spitzer
& Andrew G. Celli, Jr.
Democrats don’t need to restrain the free market; they need to unleash it. A Democratic vision for the New Economy.

4 FREE weeks of TNR Digital.
No obligation. Click here.




true costs of the Medicare reform passed last year.

What struck me most about this story was how generally muted the reaction to it was.

I don’t think this was because it wasn’t reported widely or because people didn’t take note. I think people just aren’t that surprised that this administration would practice deceit in such a casual, even routine, manner.

It’s just not surprising anymore. It’s expected. (Pat Moynihan died too soon to see the most bracing example of defining — governmental — deviancy down.)

In any case, now we have another example from the latest Bush campaign ad.

This one uses last year’s $87 billion Iraq supplemental, and the fact that Kerry voted against it, to accuse him of voting against each of the various line items for troop funding included in the bill.

Now, this is inherently misleading since I believe Kerry, like many other Dems, voted for an alternative bill which would have funded these needs by rescinding part of Bush tax cuts. So to say he voted against these particulars is really a distortion of the legislative process.

(Admittedly, it’s not quite as bad as what they tried to pull last week, but still pretty bad. In that case, the President charged Kerry with a reckless plan to cut Intelligence spending in 1995, without mentioning that the agency targeted was was mismanaging the funds in question or, much more importantly, that the Congress, then under Republican control, voted a substantially larger cut than the one Kerry had proposed.)

What’s more, the commercial highlights three budget items, each of which were ones the president opposed and had to be bullied into supporting — by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

The text narration says: “”No body armor for troops in combat. No higher combat pay. No to better health care for reservists and their families. No — wrong on defense.”

What’s most bracing about this narration is that this is actually a pretty factual statement if the target is the president, not Kerry.

Now, one claim really stands out here. The ad says Kerry voted no to “higher combat pay.”

This is truly a milestone in the long bilious history of gall.

If you watched this debate at the time you’ll remember that last summer the Bush administration went to great lengths to cut combat pay for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to save money for other priorities. They only relented when Democrats, Republicans and most of all military-oriented publications like Army Times expressed so much outrage that they had no choice but abandon the effort.

Here’s a snippet from an article which appeared on August 15th, 2003 in the San Francisco Chronicle which gives a brief glimpse of their ignominious retreat …

The White House quickly backpedaled Thursday on Pentagon plans to cut the combat pay of the 157,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan after disclosure of the idea quickly became a political embarrassment.
The Pentagon’s support for the idea of rolling back “imminent danger pay” by $75 a month and “family separation allowances” for the American forces by $150 a month collapsed after a story in The Chronicle Thursday generated intense criticism from military families, veterans groups and Democratic candidates seeking to unseat President Bush in 2004.

And so the White House which was pushing to save money by reducing combat pay for troops currently serving in two combat zones is now challenging Kerry’s national security bona-fides by alleging that he opposed increases in combat pay.

Posted by: typhonus at March 18, 2004 11:15 AM

Oh, here’s a nice article from Talking Points Memo:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_03_14.html#002710

As you know, it’s now been revealed that the White House threatened the top government Medicare actuary that he’d be fired if he revealed the true costs of the Medicare reform passed last year.

What struck me most about this story was how generally muted the reaction to it was.

I don’t think this was because it wasn’t reported widely or because people didn’t take note. I think people just aren’t that surprised that this administration would practice deceit in such a casual, even routine, manner.

It’s just not surprising anymore. It’s expected. (Pat Moynihan died too soon to see the most bracing example of defining — governmental — deviancy down.)

In any case, now we have another example from the latest Bush campaign ad.

This one uses last year’s $87 billion Iraq supplemental, and the fact that Kerry voted against it, to accuse him of voting against each of the various line items for troop funding included in the bill.

Now, this is inherently misleading since I believe Kerry, like many other Dems, voted for an alternative bill which would have funded these needs by rescinding part of Bush tax cuts. So to say he voted against these particulars is really a distortion of the legislative process.

(Admittedly, it’s not quite as bad as what they tried to pull last week, but still pretty bad. In that case, the President charged Kerry with a reckless plan to cut Intelligence spending in 1995, without mentioning that the agency targeted was was mismanaging the funds in question or, much more importantly, that the Congress, then under Republican control, voted a substantially larger cut than the one Kerry had proposed.)

What’s more, the commercial highlights three budget items, each of which were ones the president opposed and had to be bullied into supporting — by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

The text narration says: “”No body armor for troops in combat. No higher combat pay. No to better health care for reservists and their families. No — wrong on defense.”

What’s most bracing about this narration is that this is actually a pretty factual statement if the target is the president, not Kerry.

Now, one claim really stands out here. The ad says Kerry voted no to “higher combat pay.”

This is truly a milestone in the long bilious history of gall.

If you watched this debate at the time you’ll remember that last summer the Bush administration went to great lengths to cut combat pay for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to save money for other priorities. They only relented when Democrats, Republicans and most of all military-oriented publications like Army Times expressed so much outrage that they had no choice but abandon the effort.

Here’s a snippet from an article which appeared on August 15th, 2003 in the San Francisco Chronicle which gives a brief glimpse of their ignominious retreat …

The White House quickly backpedaled Thursday on Pentagon plans to cut the combat pay of the 157,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan after disclosure of the idea quickly became a political embarrassment.
The Pentagon’s support for the idea of rolling back “imminent danger pay” by $75 a month and “family separation allowances” for the American forces by $150 a month collapsed after a story in The Chronicle Thursday generated intense criticism from military families, veterans groups and Democratic candidates seeking to unseat President Bush in 2004.

And so the White House which was pushing to save money by reducing combat pay for troops currently serving in two combat zones is now challenging Kerry’s national security bona-fides by alleging that he opposed increases in combat pay.

Posted by: typhonus at March 18, 2004 11:15 AM

Oh look its one of our coalition of the willing:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040318/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_poland_weapons&cid=1514&ncid=1480

In a first sign of official criticism in Poland of the US-led invasion of Iraq (news - web sites), President Aleksander Kwasniewski said that his country had been “taken for a ride” about the alleged existence of weapons of mass destruction in the strife-torn country.

“That they deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that’s true. We were taken for a ride,” Kwasniewski said Thursday.

Posted by: typhonus at March 18, 2004 11:18 AM

Todd We’ll start and end with this - You can expect that there will be at least a million more veterans who will be lining up to vote for Kerry because Bush has failed to provide funding for their medical, mental health, and substance abuse needs. I read this and expected that you were expressing yourself and your disdain for the current President in your usual cynical fashion. I asked for specifics, because I am unaware that funding to Veterans for ANY programs has been cut. And I looked at what you linked.

You then went on to attempting to explain yourself with this statement - I’m saying Bush’s concern for military personnel wanes when their service is no longer making his friends rich. Not only is it an insult to the President, it is also an insult to the men and women who serve or who have served to make such a statement. You are foul, indeed.

You then attempt to erect a straw-man by leaping on Cheney on a matter of Executive Priviledge, and diss that as hypocritical.

So. Excuse me if I avoid losing my temper with you and your fork-ed tongue. I will give no apology, as I have nothing to apologize for. Your attempts at sarcasm are akin to several other commentors here, who think they can veil their Bush-hatred in witty (but cynical) WordPlay. As I see it, what irritates you as that there’s someone else around this blog that can joust with you and make you look bad. I’m only one of a number of those folks. :o)

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 18, 2004 12:38 PM

“Powell said there were 30 named and 15 unnamed countries.”

“Then the administration came out with a list of 45 countries two weeks later.”

“the administration did not give full support for the statement it made.”

Uhm? Does this make any sense at all? Cause to me it doesn’t.

President Bush’s Administration is a ‘liar’ because you believe there are 46+ countries and not 45 countries at that time based on absolutely no evidence what so ever. Yea. Well. I think Pigs can fly!

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 18, 2004 03:21 PM

JeffM

Now you are just downright dishonest. Add that to your trophy case of being a fraud, a hypocrite, and a nitwit.

Cap’n

You are disingenuous by deflecting and dismissing my statements as “witty word play” rather than dealing with them directly on the merits. And you continue to conveniently ignore the points I have made and have failed to refute them. You say you looked at my links, but you failed to acknowledge that you mischaracterized what I said and you were wrong. You are a fraud.

It doesn’t start and end where you say it does. You need to make it to the starting line before you can even start talking about where it ends. How is Cheney energy a straw man? Your arrogance is highly unjustified given you lack of analysis and supporting argument. You demand from others that which you are unwilling or unable to provide. You lack credibility, sir, but then that has never been a requirement for a pavlovian neocon.

Posted by: Todd at March 18, 2004 05:27 PM

    Saddam Hussein could not be left to his own devices based on everything we learned about him for seven and a half years while we were inspecting in Iraq. People have forgotten that for seven and a half years, we found weapons of mass destruction. We were destroying weapons of mass destruction. We were, the United States of America, together with Ambassador Butler, and the United Nations.

john kerry, advancing the wmd deception on 9/14/03

Posted by: wafflestomper at March 18, 2004 06:11 PM

I called you on your crap, Todd. Tossing out the Cheney Straw-Man is disengenuous. There has been NO reduction in Benefits! To any Veteran. Because you would care to wag your tail where you think there’s a sign of a Hydrant you can lift your leg on, does not mean that the Admin has to lead you by the leash to your PitStop. Raggin’ on me with your cynical crap buys you nothing but being ignored. Keep it up. Be more careful in how you put your ScrabblePieces together if you don’t want others to misunderstand your argument. You are a Liberal man whose choice happens to be Beer instead of Whiskey. Join the rest of your Liberal friends in voting for whom you choose. You picked a ‘winner’. Heh.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 18, 2004 06:48 PM

O.k. Bagdad Bob, er, Cap’n Doc. Whatever you say.

Posted by: Todd at March 19, 2004 07:55 AM

Was that just name calling instead of logical debate?

Posted by: jones at March 19, 2004 09:51 AM

Todd,

Just curious, do you use the Tony Foresta
handle most of the time? It seems like it.

Posted by: leaddog2 at March 19, 2004 10:05 AM

Jones,

Not exactly. It was more a commentary on his argument style. I made a statement, he acused me of making a statement that was stronger than the one I had actually made and demanded that I back it up, which I did, and then he continued to deny what I had proven without logical support. It was very Bagdad Bob-esque. I am losing faith in this site as a place of reasoned debate, and those populating it indignantly demand that which they are unwilling to give.

But yes, I do recall our previous exchange, and I have resorted to a form of name calling, one that is intended to be more descriptive than the pathetically dismissive “troll,” such as the use of “fraud” as a proxy for describing those who demand that which they are unwilling to give, but I admit is name calling nonetheless.

Leaddog2

No, but it comes as no surprise that I like some of the things he says. Which is to say, I don’t agree with everything he says. But, no doubt, someone will probably accuse me of that.

Posted by: Todd at March 19, 2004 10:32 AM

Todd It is amazing how you obfuscate for someone who is so absolutely positive of his position that you can use the word ‘obviously’ with such reckless abandon. What is YOUR point?

I specifically addressed your crap argument regarding the Cheney issue by simply pointing out that the Executive Branch of government has every right to invoke Executive Privilege, which immediately burned your Straw-Man to the ground.

You then proceed to diss on me in your last comments for this? - You unprincipled twits, nitwits, and half-wits that think you have a monopoly on the truth are a leading indicator of why reasonable Americans will not join your bastardization of conservative ideals, and why we will turn in droves to Kerry because, despite his faults, he is the only alternative to the insanity offered up by the Republicans. Did I say that? NO. YOU DID.

Let’s move on. Since the topic of this post was endorsements by ‘foreign’ leaders, let’s just fling up one from one of those leaders of the ‘Religion of Peace’ -

“Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization.” Now, mind you, he was actually endorsing President Bush (called a LIAR by the Left, and YOU), but note the reason why he does not endorse Kerry - ‘Embellishment of Blasphemy’. Nice touch, wouldn’t you say?

NOW. ‘I’m saying Bush’s concern for military personnel wanes when their service is no longer making his friends rich. What am I supposed to derive from that swipe, Todd? That was the first of many you made with your decidedly uncivil tongue. That the US Armed Services exist only to put money in the pockets of the President’s friends? Shame on you. Tell that to ANY victim’s family of a Terrorist attack. Tell that to a Military wife or child… BUT - You want to invoke as your argument that the President has CUT support for us older Veterans. And what do you use for proof? What do you supply for FACTS? Two and three year old testimony regarding the BUDGET.

So Todd, I once again call you on your name-calling, obfuscation and crap arguments. Don’t bother me and don’t bother calling me a NITWIT, cuz it just makes you look like a PortsidePuker.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 19, 2004 02:23 PM

Re: Kerry on Defense

Mr. O’Hanlon, the Brookings analyst, said of Mr. Kerry’s record, “On balance I would say that voting for 16 of 19 authorization bills is a pretty good defense against the charges that Bush is leveling, but he might be in a stronger position if at some point he’d laid out, in forward-looking terms, what he was for rather than what he was against.”

Posted by: Anthony at March 19, 2004 11:31 PM

Cap’n Doc,

Rest assured, I have every intention of bothering you and calling you on your name-calling, obfuscation, and crap arguments.

You don’t speak for all veterans, families of terrorist victims, and families of the Military. I happen to fall into two of those categories. So save your righteous indignation. There are substantial members of all three of those categories that disagree with you, on various principled bases, and believe that Bush’s policies are abhorrent. And you bet your arse that I think Bush’s concern is greater for the military-industrial-business interest than it is for the military personnel, and I think his willingness to sacrifice U.S. service members for that greater interest is abhorrent. You are goddamn right that is an insult to president Bush, and it sticks pretty hard. But that is not an insult to the service members. They have a job to do, and they are doing it admirably. I may be cynical, but that is my right, and indeed duty, as an American. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Youre failure to admit you were dishonest is perhaps a failure to see that you were dishonest, so let me spell it out for you:

What I said:

You can expect that there will be at least a million more veterans who will be lining up to vote for Kerry because Bush has failed to provide funding for their medical, mental health, and substance abuse needs.

What you said I said:

Provide some links and numbers on those REDUCTIONS in benefits for Military and Veterans, please. Mine went up. :o)

You were dishonest in characterizing what I said, and even highlighted that dishonesty with ALL CAPS and a smiley face. Nevertheless, I provided you links to a description of a February 2004 NPR piece, and testimony regarding the 2004, 2003, and 2002 budgets that, I submit, demonstrate a pattern by the administration of failing to give veterans the services they have earned by REDUCING funding in the areas I had described. Here it is again:

Despite the increasing need for integrated mental health services and care coordination for older veterans, funding for VA mental health research, training, and services is falling dangerously behind. Given that the VA health care system has sustained deep cuts in its psychiatric and substance abuse programs, the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2004 budget proposal is inadequate.

That was a March 2003 statement.

What was your response?

I asked for specifics, because I am unaware that funding to Veterans for ANY programs has been cut

There has been NO reduction in Benefits! To any Veteran.

This is why I said, in an admittedly flippant way, that your arguments were Baghdad Bob-esque. “There are NO U.S. Troops near Baghdad. They are not anywhere.” Deny, deny, deny! Nitwit.

And this statement,

The executive Branch of government has every right to invoke Executive Privilege

is flat out wrong. (It is the fallacy of proving too much.) They don’t have EVERY right, hence the law suit pending before the supremes. But if this is your argument, that the only principled difference between Cheney and Kerry is executive privilege, then I would submit that many of the principled justifications supporting executive privilege also support Kerry’s refusal to divulge the identities of foreign dignitaries he said he had discussions with. Everyone except yourself was smart enough to see that, and I suspect that is why they have not engaged me on the merits. I submit that saying my alleged “straw man” has burned to the ground is not engaging me on the merits. This is why you are the weak, I am the strong, and Bush is the tyrany of evil men.

As for your comments on “Embellishment of Blasphemy” I have to admit I have no idea what in the hell you point is, or even what you are talking about. I have one clarification, though. I would not so much call Bush a liar (although, admittedly, I think I have) but he is more accurately described as deceitful, which in some ways is even worse. At any rate, for all his professed love of God, he will be smoking a turd in hell for his deeds.

So blister away, you neocon blowhard. You provide rich fodder for my arguments.

Posted by: Todd at March 20, 2004 04:11 PM

Uhhh, Todd That testimony you so graciously quoted (and the link you posted) was from 2001. I think you better start looking at the links before jumping overboard.

Executive Privilege exists for a reason. It has everything to do with my argument, which I still maintain was a Straw-Man for your previous errors, which I just pointed out. Nitwit.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 20, 2004 05:13 PM

Chuck Hagel on ‘This Week” agrees with John McCain. Kerry would not be weak on defense.

Posted by: Anthony at March 21, 2004 10:57 AM

Do you follow everything two Republican Senators say as if it were Gospel? Big deal- look at the record and the statements Kerry has made.

Posted by: jones at March 21, 2004 05:03 PM

Mr. O’Hanlon, the Brookings analyst, said of Mr. Kerry’s record, “On balance I would say that voting for 16 of 19 authorization bills is a pretty good defense against the charges that Bush is leveling, but he might be in a stronger position if at some point he’d laid out, in forward-looking terms, what he was for rather than what he was against.”

Did I post this already?

Posted by: Anthony at March 21, 2004 10:33 PM

Doc,

You are truly delusional.

Posted by: Todd at March 22, 2004 04:50 PM

Todd That’s the nicest thing you’ve said to me in awhile. Did your Pharmacist come back from vacation? :o)

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 24, 2004 02:49 PM

The only foreign leaders that support Kerry are those that want a weak President so that they can bully him in international affairs. They picked the right guy . . indecisive, directionless, and weak of character. . . perfect attributes to be bullied by the Chiracs and those like him. Just because he rides a Harley doesn’t make him a good Hells Angel.

Posted by: Ted Hamano at April 13, 2004 05:39 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.


Remember me?

(You may use HTML tags for style)