Is Michael Moore is right. Are Americans dumb?

In his Convention address, didnt Kerry basicly call Saudi Arabia our real enemy? Thay wasnt smart. They have sattelite TV too, idiot. This kind of talk is ok for TV pundits and guys selling books, but this was a slip-up.

This guy also voted against the liberation of Kuwait, and has consistently belittled the involvement by our Arab allies? One just unraveled Al Queda and may have saved hundreds of American lives at home.

Kuwait banned the Moore movie. The Saudis called it crap. Pakistan is bustin heads. And all of them plus Turkey and Jordan have already offered to send troops into Iraq to secure borders and shipments under UN, NATO or even US command!!

There is no way Kerry could every match the relationship this administration has with these Arab nations. And that despite 2 humilating wars and staunch support of Isreal!

Maybe Kerry only values European allies. If Kerry loves France so much, why doesnt he move back?

Posted by: Agrippa at August 3, 2004 09:14 AM

This is what Michael Moore, John Kerry and their anti-war, anti-freedom allies would say. See for yourself!

How Would the D-DAY INVASION be Reported today?

(This is what you might hear if today’s media reported on D-Day at Normandy…)

June 6, 1944. NORMANDY Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more wounded today in the first hours of America’s invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops.

Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated and reaction against the American invasion was running high. “We are dying for no reason,” said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. “Americans can’t even shoot straight. I never thought I’d say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler.”

The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops, tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, threatening the species with extinction.
A representative of Greenpeace said his organization, which had tried to stall the invasion for over a year, was appalled at the destruction, but not surprised.. “This is just another example of how the military destroys the environment without a second thought, ” said Christine Moanmore. “And it’s all about corporate greed.”
Contacted at his Manhattan condo, a member of the French government-in-exile who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded said the invasion was based solely on American financial interests. “Everyone knows the President Roosevelt has ties to big beer,” said Pierre LeWimp. “Once the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt’s beer cronies will control the world market and make a fortune.”

Administration supporters said America’s aggressive actions were based in part on the assertions of controversial scientist Albert Einstein, who sent a letter to Roosevelt speculating that the Germans were developing a secret weapon, a so-called “atomic bomb.” Such a weapon could produce casualties on a scale never seen before and cause environmental damage that could last for thousands of years. Hitler has denied having such a weapon and international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after spending two long weekends in Germany. Shortly after the invasion began reports surfaced that German prisoners had been abused by Americans. Mistreatment of Jews by Germans at so-called “concentration camps” has been rumored but so far, remains unproven.

Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion and French officials are concerned that uncollected corpses pose a public health risk. “The Americans should have planned for this in advance,” they said. “It’s their mess and we don’t intend to clean it up.”

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 3, 2004 10:14 AM

Great satire LD!!! That post does make the current whining seem foolish. Good job

Posted by: skip at August 3, 2004 10:22 AM

Hoodathunk?

The polls that show Dubya doing well indicate that Americans are insightful.

The polls that show Kerry doing well indicate that Americans are dumb.

Seems as how the interpretation of The Polls depends more on the observers’ partisan preferences than on what they actually say.

And the beat goes on.

Posted by: Don at August 3, 2004 10:46 AM

leaddog2- Excellent parody & sadly all too believable. Well done!

These are the numbers that Rasmussen shows today (8/3/04) Updated Weekly:

Who is a Better Leader? Bush 46 Kerry 41
Trust on Nat’l Defense? Bush 49 Kerry 45
Trust to Manage Economy? Bush 46 Kerry 46
Winning the War on Terror US 45 Terrorists 27
How is Bush handling Iraq Ex/Good 45 Poor 42
How is Bush handling Econ Ex/Good 41 Poor 38

I don’t know how the question on handling the War or Being CinC was posed in the ABC/Washington Post Poll, but that plus the sample polled might account for the discrepancy. Their numbers have been trending to the “unusual” of late - for both sides.

Jim

Posted by: Jim at August 3, 2004 01:20 PM

Kerry may well be better qualified to be commander in chief in the sense that he has seen combat and Bush was only in the Air National Guard. This is a technicality. The best ‘qualified’ person does not always get the job for many reasons. When I recruit people I look at qualifications and real experience as well as personality etc. I believe the result of this poll reflects a question that had too narrow a focus.

Posted by: AngloAmerican at August 3, 2004 02:46 PM

I agree with Anglo American to the extent that:

(1) The questions is tricky to answer as most people only have a vague idea of the role and responsibilties of the Commander-in-Cheif really is. Being a good politician is only part of it and not the major component. Being able to justify their answer for most respondents to such a question would prove difficult.

Kerry says he can and asks for the opportunity. Bush says he already is and asks that you see for your self. If you are an open minded person, then you can judge for yourself. If your mind is not willing to consider the pros and cons objectively of a person’s total package, it is a question whose answer is based upon loyalities, emotion and partisan politics.

(2) You are correct that whether it is 90 days in a combat zone or a couple of years flying interceptors in the Guard, neither provides much in the way of true qualifications or experience of the type a Chief Executive needs. These are precetions of qualifying for some and techicalities for others. I am glad personally as a recently retired vet that my choices include men who served honorably and well. This same sentiment may not be as strongly felt by some who chose not to go into the military though.

FDR never served but Truman did and in combat… both had excellent but quite different styles of leadership qualities and when faced with tough decisions as C-in-C in time of war did so to the best of their total abilities.

No matter who wins, I’m sure they are and will, if given the chance to do so for the first time or to continue in place, get the job done as best they know and understand how.

Our challenge is to get past the rethoric and spin and rank accordingly as to who we might think may do it better.

Posted by: steve at August 3, 2004 05:45 PM

Steve,

I appreciate your comments, and I think you raise an interesting point.

In all sincerity, what do you think makes George Bush a good Commander in Chief?

Posted by: Todd at August 3, 2004 06:16 PM

I’m afraid I have to agree with the poll. John Kerry is much more suited for the job of leading and protecting this country. He was the only one smart enough to side with the enemy in Viet Nam and badmouth our troops. How did Bush undermine us then? That’s right, he was too fu-kin’ lazy to get out and protest and socialize with the Kennedys and the French, that got us into Viet Nam, and never had the balls to get up and lie before the Senate about what animals all those young men that served and died in Viet Nam were. How can I support a gutless fuk like that with a clear conscience? George Bush wasn’t even smart enough to get into a foreign school where he could be professionally taught to hate America and to learn what damage he might could cause by working a life of politics. If someone told you one of those 2 guys, Kerry or Bush, was bold enough to spit on returning troops and call them ‘baby killers’, I can guarantee you it wasn’t that gutless pussy Bush.

My mind is made up, so don’t confuse me with facts.

Posted by: No Party at August 3, 2004 06:17 PM

Todd asked, “In all sincerity, what do you think makes George Bush a good Commander in Chief?”

Laura. :)

Posted by: No Party at August 3, 2004 06:25 PM

I’m thinkin’ Michael Moore might have been a good alternative to Kerry. I don’t think the french could make up their mind, so they just went with Kerry. Hillary would have probably jumped at the chance to be Moore’s VP.

Posted by: No Party at August 3, 2004 06:42 PM

Todd,

What makes me think that GWB is a fine Commander in Chief?

First hand personal experience.

I had to brief him personally as a Marine staff officer on the ongoing war in Afghanistan several times and on the development of the war plans to build up for Iraq while in the Pentagon. (As soon as I was released to return to full duty status after the terriorist suicide attack struck near my office.)

I also saw him interact with the troops as well as the general officers and admirals on several occasions. His and the Vice President’s visits and pep talks were warmly greeted and always had overflowing (and voluntary) participation.

I’ve had the opportunity over thirty years in studying and observing good leaders (Presidnets, VPs, Senator, Congressmen and Congress women, etc.) and watching all how they interact with the troops. The Presidents I observed all had their strong points and, shall we say, not so strong points as C-in-Chief when it came to military matters.

The troops genuinely like the current President and he in turn is very comfortable with them and genuinely loves them and it shows. His quiet and down-to-earth rapport with them is as good as I’ve seen since President Regan. And most of this is away from the cameras and the press so I know it is not for show or political gain. On board the ship that day that the Democrats now so mockingly put down was one of the best I’ve seen. Watching the crew mingle and chat with President Bush while he was in his flight suit reminded me so much of some of the war time visits by Churchill to the British and Canadian forces in WWII. His opposition may have hated him for it, but the sailors and Marines on that ship loved him.

Although I did not see it first hand, many of my fellow Marines and Army associates who were there sent back glowing reports via our personal emails of his impact and effect on the troops in Iraq last November. The cell phones all went off simultaneously as soldiers and Marines were calling home to tell their families who they were having Thanksgiving dinner with. I’ve heard that his personal and very private chats with the wounded have been equally awesome. Nearly all the troops and their families at Walter Reed and Bethesda have tears in their eyes after he and the First Lady visit.

Unfortunately, most of all what I know first hand about Senator Kerry as a military leader I gained from his “gift” to me on my 23rd birthday in 1971 when he branded me a baby killer, rapist among other names. Two weeks later that year while walking in Annapolis in uniform, I was bombarded by catcalls and abusive language and then someone threw dog dung on me. My civilian “peers” who had stopped to harrass me echoed Kerry’s words as they drove away, laughing. I am trying very hard to not let what he did then cloud my judgement today… I know that several of my friends stationed in Iraq say his picture from that Congressional hearing of him in long hair and abusing his uniform (which he wore incorrectly and childishly with his dress/formal medals on a utility uniform ala some Hollywood or TV sitcom) has been posted on more than one dart board in many barracks and troop messes. As quickly as the SNCOs tear them down, they reapper.

You asked and I sincerely answered.

Posted by: steve at August 4, 2004 12:52 AM

-*

This may be some what off topic I don’t know the good Senator Daschel ( If indeed he is good or what. ) BUT>>>>>>

Being from another country I don’t know who Tom Daschel is or what party he’s from, so when I see an ad with him beside John K. I figure he must be a Liberal.

OK. He might be an independent who is teaming up with John K. I don’t know, so I go to his web page (found in the Command Post’s right column) and low and behold no where is it plainly pointed out that he is a Democrat, one must read the fine print to find out what party this guy is from!

My BULLSHIT DETECTOR starts flashing, Senator are we embarrassed to be a Democrat or what?

-PS if you type Daschel into your spell checker it suggests “Diastole” m. to expand…more at stall.

-

Posted by: augurwell at August 4, 2004 09:14 AM

augurwell, Tom Daschel is one of the queen bees of the liberal extremists. Senate minority leader and extreme liberal senator from S. Dakota. On the eve of us going to war he found a tv camera and screamed about ‘what a miserable failure George Bush was’. This man would be more at home in a gay rights parade in San Francisco.

I will support his opponent all I can, and I don’t even live there. I used to go to the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally every year. Myself and about 10 other friends would spend approx. $2,000 each, during that week. I am proud to say, that after little Tommy’s speech on the eve of war, none of has returned to that fine state since. If for no other reason, Daschle is an insult to our veterans, our troops and our country. I would love to be the one that hands him his ‘pink slip’. (not the pink slip he wears around his house, his termination papers)

As soon as he’s gone, we will return.

Posted by: No Party at August 4, 2004 09:59 AM

** OFF TOPIC** (with my apologies, but necessary!)

Posted by: Todd at August 2, 2004 06:47 PM
Well done! You did forgot to call me a poopy head, though.

Posted by: Todd at August 2, 2004 06:50 PM
Incidentally, how is being a pompous ass a mantra?
Man´tra
Noun 1. mantra - a commonly repeated word or phrase.

Todd,
OK, obviously we got started out on the wrong foot. What I sincerely hoped could turn out to be a civil and productive debate with someone obviously quite capable, quickly degraded into a pissing match…from both parties.

I duly apologize for the disparaging remarks and concede my culpability for the “return fire” as it was uncalled for, regardless. I do want to point out that if you will note the date/time of your posts below, that yours preceded my tirade and are essentially what I posted in retort reworded.

Posted by: Todd at July 30, 2004 06:24 PM
“Obviously, you have issues. Keep ‘em coming. I’ll try to help you work through them.”
Posted by: Todd at August 2, 2004 03:06 PM
“I guess it is true that one should not argue with the feeble-minded, because others may not be able to tell the difference.”

Again, my apology is in earnest and certainly not trying to make excuses (nor commit the fallacy of Two wrongs make a right!)…just want to establish that there is equal opportunity for finding fault. Hopefully you can at least concede that point! 8-)

I am perfectly willing to agree to disagree at any time (preferably, prior to such diatribe in the future!) as obviously we are both rather opinionated.

BTW- Thank you (sincerely!) for pointing out my misuse of Mantra…what I meant was that I see it as a commonly repeated theme, or perhaps even better- protocol (see the preponderance of Don’s posts for glaring examples!)! Sorry for any confusion.

Posted by: DevilDoc at August 4, 2004 10:54 AM

Steve,

I thought you might have something interesting to say. I had no idea it was going to be first hand. You have obviously earned the right to praise Bush and criticize Kerry. Thanks for your perspective. It gives me great confidence to know that men of your caliber are at the helm. Semper Fi, Sir.

Devil Doc,

I admire your integrity. I will admit that, looking back, there are a few things I’m not so proud of in those posts. So, I apologize for the baiting. Let the debate rage on. Well informed and respectful like.

Posted by: Todd at August 4, 2004 02:02 PM

ROFL augurwell.

That ad over there on the right with Kerry and Daschel is the best campaign promotion for Bush/Cheney that I’ve even seen. The thought of Daschel in charge of anything outside of his district in S. Dakota ought to scare the crap out of every Republican and get them to the voting booth Nov. 2nd.

Posted by: TexasGal at August 4, 2004 02:09 PM

Steve I am truly awestruck by your post. I really am. Your personal perspective in your comments was of great value to me, even if the word ‘value’ has been overused of late.

A simple Thank You will not suffice, but I’m no WordSmith, so I can’t come up with anything better.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at August 4, 2004 06:20 PM

Steve,

I, too, am “awestruck” by your post and have just sent it around to my family. We are all so very grateful for what you have done and what you continue to do for our Country!

Thank you so much,

Jim

Posted by: Jim at August 4, 2004 07:30 PM

Steve,

Thanks also for the great post.

What you say mirrors pretty much what I have seen of visits with the President. I often see pictures of him in farm magazines meeting with this or that farm or conservation group, generally looking at some part of his ranch. The entire group generally looks amiable and relaxed and the President always looks comfortable in these situations. This tells me a great deal about the kind of man he is, and is not.

Chads

Posted by: Chads at August 4, 2004 09:07 PM

Thanks Steve for revealing such a personal story about your life. And thank you for your service to our country. Goodness, your words brought tears to my eyes!

But you’re right about GW, he is genuinely concerned and interested in the people he serves and leads. I’ve only met him once while he was Governor of Texas and it was on an occasion as he often says as Laura’s husband. But when he shook my hand and said hello he looked me deep in the eyes and I could see the sparkle of sincerity in his. In my previous life I worked in the area of youth services and had three occasions to meet Laura. What really struck me is that on the second occasion, she recognized me and by the third time she treated me like I was a personal friend. There really is nothing pretentious about either of them.

Posted by: TexasGal at August 4, 2004 10:27 PM

Wow… son of gun, I’m impressed by all of you from this. Your kind words have humbled this ol’ Marine (and Devil Doc can attest that this is not something easily done to us Leathernecks!) Semper Fi back to ya, Doc! Thanks.

Todd… you are most welcome and I hope that my post encourages you to defend your candidate even more fervently and with the thought provocative logic that I see in many of your posts and replies. I enjoy your intellectual challenges to my opinions and it forces me to revisit the rationale and being for my own preferences to be sure I’m own terra firma and not in some fantansy world.

Even with all the passion and sometimes regrettable name calling and baiting, this command Post outlet is an example of what makes America so great. It means the world to me and my fellow men and women in uniform, both active, reserves and retired. This is just one example why we fight to defend your rights to do so. Why some may disagree… I’m glad we are doing the defending for all of you in the Afghan mountains and in the streets of Mosul rather than back here at home.

I pray that someday, Shiite, Sunni, Jew and Arab will be able to similarly go hammer and tong verbally but not physically nor violently in the pursuit of Freedom that we Americans would hopefully been able to have given them as a gift. Wouldn’t it be great if someday the only bomb that we worry coming from that whole crew is the “F-bomb”!

P. S. I hope my comments on Sen. Kerry were not contrused as personal attacks. I really respect him for all that he has done. It took a lot of courage I’m sure to do what he did that spring after resigning his commission to voice his opposition to the war. I just wish he had tried to do so without all the public spectcle and instead had used his combat record, influential contacts and leadership training to work more productively within the system. I know from my reviewing the records of the POWs that his words were welcomed by the enemy and used against our men being held in POW camps. I’m sure he did not intend for that to happen no more than he wanted his comtemporaries to take it out on our own service men and women at the time.

Posted by: steve at August 4, 2004 11:22 PM