Cheney called out by Harkin

[Master Capper]

Finally someone had the balls to call out this idiot that wants to act like he is a Navy Seal but in reality he was a coward that hid from Nam! At least I will give Bush credit that he at least went through the motions to act like he cared about America and was willing to help in the National Guard but Cheney hid like the coward he is, way to go Mr. Harkin!


DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney's questioning of John Kerry's war record and his ability to protect America is "cowardly," Sen. Tom Harkin said Monday.

"It just outrages me that someone who got five deferments during Vietnam and said he had 'other priorities' at that time would say that," said the Iowa Democrat, a former Navy fighter pilot.

Harkin said he had seen clips of the vice president saying in Iowa last week that Kerry lacks a basic understanding of the war on terrorism.

He accused President Bush and his vice president of "resorting to dirty attacks on John Kerry's war record."

"They're running scared because John Kerry has a war record and they don't," said Harkin. "What he (Cheney) is doing and what he is saying is cowardly. The actions are cowardly."

Harkin, a 20-year veteran of the Senate, was a Navy flier from 1962-67, including stints at Atsugi Naval Air Station in Japan and Guantanamo Bay. He served 1968-74 in the Reserves.

He said Cheney has little standing to question the war record of Kerry, who was repeatedly wounded and decorated while serving as a swift boat commander in Vietnam.

The issue first arose when Harkin joined with Des Moines police officials protesting the call-up of a police officer who already had completed his eight year military commitment.

Harkin said that it angered him to hear tough talk from Cheney.

"When I hear this coming from Dick Cheney, who was a coward, who would not serve during the Vietnam War, it makes my blood boil," said Harkin.

"He'll be tough, but he'll be tough with someone else's kid's blood," said Harkin.

Harkin said he decided to speak out because Republicans have a history of attacking on the issue of patriotism, including questioning the patriotism of former Sen. Max Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm to a grenade in Vietnam.

Too often, those who are targeted simply ignore the charges, Harkin said.

"You can't let them do that again," said Harkin. "If you let these crazy attacks go unanswered, they take on a life of their own."

Republican National Committee spokesman David James dismissed the attack as shrill and negative.

 

[Chanman]

:yawn: And Bush Sr., (who was shot down over the Pacific in WW2- youngest Navy Pilot at the time), was defeated by Bill Clinton who you tout as one of the greatest leaders we've ever had.!
Remember the Press attacking Bush Sr for the Wimp factor?


P.S.- MC, don't take things so personal. I like reading your posts, but you and a few others get too excited. I am not flaming you or trying to rile you. Believe it or not we are all on the same team. Seems like sometimes this place reminds me of watching Rasslin in my youth...those were the days. :thumb:



Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
--Ronald Reagan

Politics gives guys so much power that they tend to behave badly around women. And I hope I never get into that.
--William J. Clinton - Bill Clinton

Liberalism...the haunting fear that someone, somewhere can help themselves.

 

[Chanman]

On Loathing Bush
It?s not about what he does.
Victor Davis Hanson

For now Americans seem to be split 50-50 over the reelection of George W. Bush. Such a hotly contested election is hardly new. We saw races just as close in 1960, 1968, and 1976. Had Ross Perot not run in 1992 ? and perhaps even in 1996 ? Bill Clinton (who didn't receive a 50 percent majority in either of his presidential races) may well have found himself in the same predicament as Gore did in Florida, 2000 ? struggling to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote to George Bush Sr.

There are a number of issues in this contest on which reasonable people can differ. If one is out of work or without comprehensive health insurance, then the economy is rocky, to be measured not by historically low unemployment figures but by the number of actual jobs lost or gained. For others more fortunate, by any fair measure of housing, transportation, or consumer goods, the United States has achieved a standard of living well beyond even that of Europe.

One can argue that the post-bellum reconstruction of Iraq was unforeseeably messy and fouled-up. Or, one can argue that it's striking that after a mere three years the United States has liberated 50 million and implemented democratic reform in place of what were the two most fascistic governments in the world ? all without another 9/11 mass murder.

Furthermore, our troubles with Europe can be seen as either provoking tried and tested friends or lancing a boil that was growing for years as a result of our different histories, the end of the Cold War, and the utopianism of the EU. We could all disagree further about education, illegal immigration, energy policy, taxation, and a host of other issues.

But what is not explicable in terms of rational disagreement is the Left's pathological hatred of George W. Bush. It transcends all contention over the issues, the Democratic hurt over the Florida elections, and even the animus once shown Bill Clinton by the activist Right. From where does this near-religious anger arise and what does it portend?

 

[Chanman]

Let's start with the admission that much of the invective is irrational, fueled by emotion rather than reason. Thus the black leadership uses slurs such as "Taliban" and "Confederacy" against Bush, even though no other president has selected an African-American secretary of State and national-security adviser or pledged so many billions for AIDS relief in Africa. Liberals talk of social programs starved, but domestic spending under Bush increased at annual rates greater than during any Democratic administration in recent history. Just read howls of conservatives who worry about Bush's Great Society-like programs.

On foreign policy, Kerry rips Bush apart ? but can't say whether he would have gone into Afghanistan and Iraq and is unable to specify how he would have gotten pacifistic Europeans on board. It is common to caricature Ashcroft as some Seven Days in May insurrectionist, bent on overthrowing the Constitution; but given the almost daily arrests of terror suspects in the United States, Kerry cannot tell us how exactly the Patriot Act has eroded our freedoms, much less why it is unnecessary in hunting down potential mass murderers.

What is it about Bush that elicits such hatred, that galvanizes even usually mindless rock stars, self-indulgent Hollywood actors, lethargic ex-presidents and vice presidents, and hypocritical Democratic senators to embrace such canonical fury? Why was the Left content to make fun of Ford's clumsiness, Reagan's forgetfulness, and George Sr.'s preppiness, but now calls George W. a Nazi and worse still? Why are there forthcoming novels and plays that discuss the assassination of George W. Bush? Why did we not get a Reaganwacked, a Reaganworld, a Lies of Ronald Reagan ? a similar vast industry of paperback pulp equating Reagan with evil incarnate?

THE SOUTHERN ALBATROSS
Bush is a southerner, with a drawl ? but not one who is either liberal or Democratic. We forget just how rare that is.

In fact, we have not seen a twanged president or vice president who was conservative in over a half-century. The previous rule? A Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Lloyd Bentsen, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or John Edwards could serve or run for executive national office only on a simple triangulating premise ? they offered moderate and regional balance to Yankee liberalism and yet did not in the slightest scare the rest of the country with images of a redneck South.

Any unrepentant conservatives from the south ? former Democrats like a John Connolly or a Phil Graham ? who sought the presidency quickly faded. Mr. Bush is unusual ? an adopted Texan who reflects the attitudes and beliefs of most Southerners, and who counts on real political affinity rather than mere regional loyalty for support south of the Mason-Dixon Line. Nixon-Lodge, Goldwater-Miller, Nixon-Agnew, Ford-Dole, Reagan-Bush, Bush-Quayle, Dole-Kemp, Bush-Cheney ? not a Southern conservative Republican to be found on any ticket, a trend that surely keeps Karl Rove's wheels spinning each night.

For the Left, Mr. Bush is automatically under a cloud of suspicion; he is an unapologetic twanger who likes guns, barbeques, NASCAR, "the ranch," and pick-up trucks. It matters little that George Bush's record on classical civil-rights issues is impeccable, without a hint of the deplorable racism of a younger Senator Byrd, a Lyndon Johnson, or an Al Gore Sr. Every statement Bush drawls out about religion, affirmative action, or abortion is forever suspect ? sort of what would happen should a Germanic-sounding Arnold Schwarzenegger quite rightly lecture Californians about the need for greater order, efficiency, cohesiveness, and the willpower to regain pride and purpose. Necessary, yes ? but for some, given his accent, Wagnerian and spooky all the same.


BIBLE THUMPING
Similarly, Bush's Christianity seems evangelical and literal. It comes across as disturbing to liberals of the country who see religion as a mere social formality at best, useful for weddings and funerals, perhaps comforting at Christmas and Easter of course, but otherwise a potential threat to the full expression of lifestyle "choices."

American politicos like their candidates to be Episcopalian, Unitarian, or Congregationalist, perhaps even mainstream but quiet Methodists or Presbyterians. Baptists of the southern flavor, or anything not found in a New England township, reflect a real belief in the literalness of the Bible ? primordial ideas that religion is not a social necessity but a fire-and-brimstone path to eternal salvation.

 

[Chanman]

Jimmy Carter came closest to the edge with his talk of being born again. Yet his liberalism, his close friendship with Walter Mondale, and his talk of American pathology convinced the Left that he was just a southern version of a Daniel Berrigan or William Sloan Coffin ? a little weird, perhaps, but useful all the same in drawing the powers of Christianity into the liberal crusade. In contrast, if Bush evokes the name of God one one-thousandth as often as did Abraham Lincoln or Reverend Jackson, he is dismissed as an unhinged zealot eager to incite a Hundred Years' War with the Muslims.


MR. MANICHEAN
Critics accuse Mr. Bush of Manichaeism ? of tough, black-and-white talk about good and evil. They are right. He certainly sounds different from the usual suburban moralist, especially in an age of irony, skepticism, and cynicism. Our era is dominated by pundits, professors, and journalists to whom hip nuance is everything. The Time magazine style of reporting starts off with Theme A, then reverses course half-way through with counterargument B, only to conclude with Theme A lite.

I like David Letterman and Jon Stewart, but like most Americans I can never really tell when or whether they are ever sincere. Not long ago a Frenchman explained to me why he hates Bush, who "thinks linearly" and has no sense of the "problematique." Face it: We are now an information society, with a premium on talk, not action. To suggest that one need not be 100 percent certain ? but perhaps only 60 percent certain ? to act is deeply disturbing. And when you add lingo like "bring 'em on," the caricature that Bush belongs on the main street of Gunsmoke rather than in Sex in the City or The West Wing is only strengthened.

Go back to the early 1960s and listen to the accents on shows like Have Gun Will Travel and GE Playhouse and contrast those characters' speech with today's television diction: The former are square, one-dimensional, blunt ? almost flat and Midwestern in tone ? the latter speak nasally, their speech drawn out and full of ironic, sarcastic under-the-breath asides, often striving to reflect sophisticated uncertainty, if not camp.

We not only have an evangelical Christian as president in the age or irony, but one who really makes it sound like we have the ability to make choices that are more right than wrong and then act on them. In a world in which our elites can give 1,000 reasons for inaction and not one for resolution, Mr. Bush seems precipitous, unnuanced, one-dimensional, and oh-so-retro.


RENEGADE ARISTOCRAT
George Bush is a traitor of the most frightening sort to his class: He is not an ideological tribune like Roosevelt or Kennedy, but someone far worse, who seems to dislike the entire baggage of sophisticated, highbrow society. An Eastern blueblood who initially did all the right things ? Prep School, the Ivy league, Skull and Bones ? he then, accent and all, not only went back to rural Texas, but embraced a popular culture antithetical to the preppie, wonkish, aristocratic world of the East Coast elite.

So Bush suffers additional invective not accorded his father, whose cadre of Wall Street stockbrokers, Council on Foreign Relations pin-stripers, and State Department sober and judicious insiders could assure the liberal establishment that, well, here was a man like us who believed in noblesse oblige, sent his kids to our schools, and simply had a smidgeon less compassion for the down-trodden.

But W.? His wife is pure Texas: a closet smoker from a family that does not have lots of money or status ? not a Kennedy or Kerry spouse replete with loot, connections, and European sophistication. Unlike Teresa, Hillary, or Tipper, Laura has no angst about her own career; she doesn't give sermons about super-womaning as wife, mother, and activist exec. Worse still, Laura Bush is happy, proud, and likes who and what she is.

We don't hear that the Bush twins are like the Kerry offspring at Harvard Med, or slashing through Stanford Chelsea-style, or even like the Gore girls, lecturing the faithful on their father's liberalism. Somehow the purportedly non-New York Times reading, non-NPR-listening, non-Guggenheim-visiting George W. Bush veered off onto the wrong path, and his recalcitrance seems to drive his aristocratic rivals nuts. His antipathy, after all, is one of choice, not fueled by an outsider's envy or prior poverty.

"Pushy" neocons ? not Shimon Peres groupies ? advise him on Israel. Bush talks to confident black entrepreneurs, not the elite CEOs of the race industry. He is at home more with ministers in polyester than with elbow-patched, turtle-necked scholars of religion. So it is not just what Bush does, but how he does it that matters so much to the exasperated, out-of-the-loop op-ed boards, Malibu filmmakers, elite newsrooms, faculty lounges, and foundation panels.

In short, the Left hates George W. Bush for who he is rather than what he does. Southern conservatism, evangelical Christianity, a black-and-white worldview, and a wealthy man's disdain for elite culture ? none by itself earns hatred, of course, but each is a force multiplier of the other and so helps explain the evolution of disagreement into pathological venom.

September 11 cooled the furor of these aristocratic critics, but Iraq re-ignited it. Not voting for George Bush is, of course understandable and millions in fact will do precisely that. But for those haters who demonize the man, their knee-jerk disgust tells us far more about their own shallow characters than it does anything about our wartime president.

And there is a great danger in all these manifestations of pure hatred. We are in a war. And in these tumultuous days, the Left's unhinged odium will resonate with and embolden not only our enemies abroad, but also the deranged, dangerous folk here at home.

 

[Chain Saw]

Help me understand something Capper. Cheney skirts around Viet Nam and he is a coward. Clinton skirts around Viet Nam and he is a ?. One more thing, just because you have a war record doesn't qualify you for anything more than a life time membership in your local VFW. Hell. alot of people have war records. Even me. Doesn't qualify me to be President, Vice-President, Senator, etc.

Yeah, Cheneys a coward. Clintons the best thing since Cuba invented the thong.

 

[Master Capper]

Chain Saw,

While your on the money on the comparison between Clinton and Cheney and I think both were cowards for taking the easy way out but the big difference at least the way I see it is that Clinton never went around attacking others that at least served their country as Cheney has done to not only Kerry but a slew of others. What gives this guy the right to question anyone's service record when he looked the other way when Uncle Sam came calling? Thats what really pisses me off, I am very respectful of any American that has ever served in the military and I cannot understand how he has the gall to challenge anyone with his past cowardly track record. Being in the military does not qualify you for any leadership position but in a time of war I personally would feel more comfortable with a guy that has been in battle and seen the consequences than in a man whom have no clue as to what a war is actually like.

Chanman,

Nothing personal taken by me, as I have said in the past I have the vast majority of your posts to enlightening even when I disagree with you! No I don't recall them calling Bush Senior a wimp, at that time in my life I was really not paying too much attention to politics. Actually, I would rate Clinton around 15th to 18th as far as past presidents but it is still too early to tell exactly how his legacy will be judged but if your comparing him to W then I guess i would have to call Clinton a great leader as W is usually ranked near the bottom 5 in most historians rankings of presidents but of course it is way too early to rate his legacy as well but from here I really don't see much he has done to warrant a higher ranking.

 

[dr. freeze]

Chain Saw,
. What gives this guy the right to question anyone's service record when he looked the other way when Uncle Sam came calling? Thats what really pisses me off, comfortable with a guy that has been in battle and seen the consequences than in a man whom have no clue as to what a war is actually like.
.

how dare anyone question a politician.....you should have lived under your hero Stalin or Saddam....no one dared question their service records either

 

[slim pickins]

...you should have lived under your hero Stalin or Saddam....no one dared question their service records either

Freeze... you make no sense at all. What does Stalin and Saddam have to with this?

There's no problem questioning one's service record. But when that person is a coward like Cheney he should not cast stones.

Or perhaps Cheney should look in the mirror and use his favorite euphemism "Go f*ck yourself!"

 

[homedog]

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.

:yup :yup :yup

Politics gives guys so much power that they tend to behave badly around women. And I hope I never get into that.

:142lmao: :142lmao: :142lmao:

Liberalism...the haunting fear that someone, somewhere can help themselves.

:yup :yup

You are the man Chan. Such simple truths. :clap:

 

[StevieD]

The difference is that Clinton was against the Vietnam conflict while Bush and Cheney where all for it as long as someone else was fighting it and not them. That is why they are dispised for being cowards and skirting around the war. And FYI the hero's of the right, on Fox and Right Wing Radio, were all over Clinton for not serving and being Commander In Chief. You guys still talk about it.

 

[SALTY DOG]

Harkin couldn't make a pimple on Cheney's ass...
:142lmao:

 

[Chanman]

http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/clinton-scandals.html

The Liberals? Creed
Editorial
May 27, 2004

by: Robert Alt

Kirkuk, Iraq?For all the talk about a widening religiosity gap between the right and the left, sentiment from the left indicates a certain religious fervor about the war in Iraq. A string of recent letters and articles from those of a more liberal persuasion suggest that they choose to ignore or simply do not believe information which is inconsistent with their basic tenets. Theirs is a policy of faith, and here is their creed.

We believe in the United Nations, and Kofi Annan, the maker of international legitimacy.

We believe that the UN inspections worked.
We believe that SCUD missiles fired at U.S. troops minutes after the war began don?t change anything;
We believe that 3 liters of sarin gas used against U.S. troops doesn?t change anything;
We believe that finding evidence of mustard gas doesn?t change anything.

We believe that the war in Iraq conducted by a Republican president was unjustified because it lacked UN approval;
We believe that the "military action" in Kosovo conducted by a Democratic president was justified without UN approval.

We believe that the Iraq war was unilateral.
We believe that the participation of Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, United Kingdom, and Ukraine does not change the fact that the war was unilateral;
We believe that multilateralism can only be achieved with the participation of France and Germany;
We believe in multilateralism.

We believe that this war was motivated by greed and oil;
We believe that when France, Germany, and Russia opposed the war, they were motivated by principle, and not by sweetheart oil deals or Oil-For-Food kickbacks;
We believe that US oil prices are too high, and that the administration failed in its responsibility to do something about it.

We believe that the U.S. may only legitimately use force for humanitarian ends in one place if it does so in all places where aid might be needed;
We believe that the U.S. may not quell threats in places where the cost is relatively low unless it is willing to use force in places like North Korea, where the cost in lives would likely be very high;
We believe that a humanitarian action is only truly humanitarian if there are no strategic interests to muddle the altruism.

We believe that President Bush lied.
We believe that Prime Minister Blair lied.
We believe that when Hillary Clinton and Dick Gephardt voted for the war based on the same intelligence relied upon by Bush and Blair, they made reasonable decisions based on the intelligence available at the time.

We believe that the administration did not make the case for war;
We believe that the administration offered many different reasons but could not offer a coherent message explaining the need to go to war;
We believe that the administration made perfectly clear that the only reason we were going to war was because of the threat from WMDs.

We believe that there were no WMDs.
We believe that finding sarin gas is 14th page news;
We believe that if the sarin gas is old, then it really isn?t a WMD we were looking for;
We believe that it wasn?t really sarin gas;
We believe that sarin gas isn?t necessarily a WMD.

We believe that there was no terrorist connection to, or threat from, Iraq.
We believe that members of Abu Nidal in Iraq would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that al Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that Saddam?s terrorist training camp at Salman Pak?complete with a Boeing 707 plane used for hijacking drills?did not exist or posed no real threat;
We believe that it was merely a coincidence that the pharmaceutical factory bombed by President Clinton in Sudan was using al Qaeda funds and a uniquely Iraqi formula to produce VX gas;
We believe that we are responsible for bringing terror on ourselves.

We believe that the prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib is widespread and is probably the tip of the iceberg;
We believe that Abu Ghraib proves that the America?s occupation is no different than Saddam?s tyranny;
We believe that any attempt to suggest that there is a moral difference between a regime which systematically killed 300,000 people and tortured countless others and a regime which punished the acts of Abu Ghraib is illegitimate.

We believe that soldiers deliberately target women and children;
We believe that the soldiers abuse and kill Iraqis because they are racists;
We support our troops.

We believe that no one should question our statement that we "support our troops;"
We believe that the best thing that could happen for this country would be for Bush to lose in November;
We believe that the best way for Bush to lose in November is for the Iraq effort to go poorly, even if that means that more Iraqis and troops will die;
We believe that most of the troops are minorities and the poor;
We believe that when the word "heroes" is used to describe our troops, it should always be enclosed in scare quotes.

We believe in quagmire.
We believe that when fringe Iraqi groups attack hard targets and are soundly defeated with relatively low Coalition casualties, that this is inescapable evidence of crisis;
We believe that Iraq is Bush?s Vietnam.

We believe that Vietnam is the lens through which all wars should be viewed.
We believe that soldiers in Vietnam were baby killers;
We believe that John Kerry is a hero for his service in Vietnam.

We believe that because John Kerry is a hero, he necessarily has the national security expertise necessary to be commander-in-chief.
We believe that any attempt to question his national security expertise based on his voting record, including his decision to vote against a supplemental bill used to buy the soldiers body armor, is an unfair attack on the patriotism of a hero, who by virtue of this honorific has the expertise to be commander-in-chief.

We believe in the trinity: NPR, CNN, and the New York Times. We believe in Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and all the DNC, and we look for President Clinton yet to come. Amen.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Going to have to nominate you as official site conservative campaighn manager Cman

 

[djv]

Yes Cheney was a ducker. He wont admit it Clinton does. As Clinton said He, Bush and Cheney all found there way to duck nam. So Cheney now buffing up his chest like some tough guy. It's a little late. He's a pussy. At least Kerry went and volunteered. And I don't care if it was for dish washer he had the balls to do it. And that's a big difference.

 

[Chanman]

Sorry Dogs, you know I agree w/you, IO, Turf, et.al., most of the time, but I'm not enamored of the Conservatives. Its just that I try to bring more info to the board when ppl comment like djv just said above. Amazing to me how the tolerant & compassionate always attack w/name-calling, the race card, and on and on.I really think they are just Bush-H8ters. I heard on the radio today that 90% of Democrats think the War was wrong. Now I could be wrong, but I think they hate Bush so much they don't want anything to go right that would give him credit, (I could be wrong, but this is my intuition). I am far from a Bush Supporter, but what friggin choice do we have? We have all been over this as a vote for Nader is wasted regardless of the person's intent.
Clinton admitted he dodged the draft a few weeks ago when it was convenient and wouldn't cost him anything politically. He never talked before about Bush Sr as a War Hero-but Kerry is?
I also heard on the radio Kerry's speech to Congress in '71 when he said they murdered Viet Namese women & children and all the atrocities they committed- Ironic, sickenly ironic, that Pol Pot came after this.
I just wish ppl could hear M. Moore and others of his ilk when they straight talk about today's problems. Moore reminds me of that old line about 'a liberal is someone who hasn't been mugged yet.' He don't look like he'd put up much of a struggle. What would M. Moore do if he were in charge of G.M.? Hint: his solution about Illegal Iimgration was (tadaa!) let them live in the desert. We have plenty of room. Look at all the space there is. P.S.- I think L.A. has closed 3 Emergency Rooms this year because they ran out of $. A major factor was treating Illegals because they are required to do so by law. I don't disagree w/the law, but do something about the border or it will never stop. There was an article in the L.A.Times about a Welder for the Immigration Control that does nothing but patch holes in the US/Mexico fence. Every day he drives the fence and welds shut the holes opened the night before. AND this fall we vote on a telephone tax, (Red Herring), that will mainly be used for a fund to pay for hospital treatments of Illegals. And of course you & I would be labeled as Racists and members of the KKK when in reality we are Race Traitors- Whites who have married outside our own race-you to a Chinese and me to a Thai. I also wonder what Moore would do for G.M.? He says we went to war for oil- that kinda involves the Big 3 doesn't it? Great he could p*ss off OPEC and still make a profit I guess.He sure makes it sound easy about 9/11. Why don't we go after who is responsible...OK Can you imagine Gore as President w/Lieberman as VP? That would really be a rallying cry for the Extremists. Clinton would have a lot of gravitas too seeing as the Muslim faithful believe Wpmen should be covered up in Public...I'm sure they would take Clinton's side in all those sexcapades.
No Dogs I've had a good day and time for a brew and the wife to walk on my back- I think you know what I mean :weed: :drinky: :142hump:

 

[djv]

Chanman I looked at what I said and don't see Bush's name anyplace. We were talking about Cheney the ducker. Acts tough. But you just know in a fight he would run and let you stand there. And please don't call me a Bush hater. I voted for the guy. Do I wish I never had? Yes. He just does and says dumb stuff. I don't think he even knows it. Thats what scares the hell out of me. M Moores movie really is basic BS. But it does bring out how dumb Bush can be.

 

[Chanman]

djv- I really don't know what difference it would be between you & a Bush h8ter. It is none of my business and it does not bother me but all you do is criticize Bush, Cheney, etc. As a matter of fact I have not seen or remember one post that you made that agreed w/the current admin. Kerry could do no wrong in Viet Nam- (you should listen to his '71 address to Congress), and all the Republicans were draft dodging cowards who now kill young Americans for their own profit. I could be wrong, but I can't recall one positive post at all. Thats your right, but voting for Bush does not mean anything as ppl can change for any number of reasons good or bad, right or wrong- Look@ Kerry's voting record!. If you were that disillusioned w/Cheney why would you vote for him as VP? If you really think Cheney is that evil & devious to undermine, sell out and disregard the US and the Armed Forces...thats your opinion. I could read into your posts and make a good case for dementia & depends. Not trying to be offensive, but tell me where I'm wrong? If this p*sses you off then forget it, but you really should read thru some of your posts. If thats truly the way you feel so be it, but don't get offended if you have to give as good as you take...or vica versa.

"Liberals are tolerant of everything except those who don't think like them"- Rush Limbaugh
No I can't recall the last time I heard Limbaugh- I just happened to find this quote.

 

[djv]

I was with Bush all the way into Afagn. Then he left that go half done and started with Iraq. Thats when I got off his band wagon.
I also support his no child left behind till they started leaving many behind. I never understood why he wanted to put us so far into a deficit. I voted for this guy because we needed a change and he talked about being a conservative. He just spends more then anyone we ever had there. So the hell with him. It's time to try something new. We need jobs and lower health care and drug prices. He has no plan for any of these. If he does he does not lay it out. On jobs we need the type Reagan and Clinton
produced. The ones you don't have to worry about minimum wage.

 

[Chanman]

Good response & good points; However, would we be alot better off if Gore/Lieberman were elected? Just curious and as I've said we have only two p*ss poor choices in the upcoming Election. If you think Kerry is the answer...if he gets Elected I hope you are right. I don't feel that way and you really should hear your War Hero's speech on what he and his claims of what the "US" did in Viet Nam.


The Kerry Campaign has been trying to discredit the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth by always referring to them as the ?Swift Boat Veterans For Bush? Today, while speaking to a convention of the International Association of Fire Fighters in Boston, Kerry said:

??here?s what you really need to know about [the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth]. They?re funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They?re a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won?t denounce what they?re up to tells you everything you need to know. He wants them to do his dirty work.?

Kerry said, ?Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that.?

Of course, he forgets that he spent the past year watching MoveOn.org (funded by billionaire George Soros), Michael Moore, Al Gore, Terry McAuliffe and other liberal mouthpieces continuously berate the president of United States. Sure, Kerry just denounced the MoveOn.org ad that questioned Bush?s National Guard service (something Kerry did quite vocally at the beginning of the year).

While the Kerry campaign and Kerry supporters are busy being hypocrites and denouncing the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth for putting out this ad and publishing a bestselling book (well within the boundaries of the law), they stop short of criticizing another group of Veterans who have been quite vocal this campaign season, who are financed by and constantly seen traveling with a political campaign-Del Sandusky, Vietnam Veteran and Kerry Crewmate

Who is doing who?s dirty work?

While there is no connection between the Swift Vets and President Bush (except in the minds of Kerry supporters and Bush haters), there is a clear and present connection between the veterans and John Kerry. It seems rather obvious that rather than addressing the claims by the Swift Vets, they attempt to discredit them by suggesting any number of clich? liberal remarks.

Here are the facts: the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth have never shared a stage with President Bush or Bush campaign surrogates, all the while Kerry puppets his ?band of brothers? every step of the campaign. You never see John O?Neill or other Swift Boat Veterans For Truth standing in front of a sea of Bush-Cheney placards, because they are not representing the Bush-Cheney campaign, they are representing themselves (and so what if they are funded by a GOP donor from Texas, MoveOn.org has received over $15 million from George Soros alone, yet the Swift Vets ad is reported to have cost only $150,000). The Swift Vets don?t travel with Bush, they don?t campaign for Bush, they?re just 100% against John Kerry, and they want Americans to know who he really is.

John Kerry is calling the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth liars?he says that he is the one telling the truth. If he truly believes that he is the only one telling truth, then John Kerry needs to fill out Standard Form 180 and prove it.

John Kerry may think that the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth are doing dirty work for President Bush, but aren?t MoveOn.org, George Soros, Michael Moore, Al Gore, Terry McAuliffe and other liberals doing the dirty work for Kerry? Yes, they have?and George W. Bush, or the Bush campaign have never whined like an upset child about it, either.