Kerry Now Challenges Bush

[PaceAdvantage]

Looks like a deflection and spin tactic. See Yahoo AP article:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040427/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_medals&cid=694&ncid=716

I particularly liked this little paragraph from the above artice:

In 1992, as Democratic candidate Bill Clinton faced criticism for avoiding service in Vietnam, Kerry said, "We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways."

LJB likes to talk about the truth hurting when it bites one in the arse. What's the pain level like when a foot is implanted quite deeply in one's own mouth?

[kenwoodallpromos]

Some polititicians customize their views just to win votes, a few do not. All I want to know about Baby Bush's Alabama service is if the Vietcong ever attacked Mobile, and if Bush committed atrocities in AL!

[Secretariat]

How can we know if he committed atrocities in Mobile when we're not sure he was ever there?

[Derek2U]

yeah SEcretariat ... missing in mobile ... condi's 1st book when she
leaves.

[Tom]

Does anyone really believe that what Kerry or Bush did 30 years ago has any bearing on how they will perform in office today?
What they were from 9/10/01 qnd back is now irelevant.
The world changed on9/11/01 and it what has happen since then that matters. Bush has been steller in fighting terror. Kerry has been an annoying itch with no platform. I have no doubt that if Kerry wins in November, hundreds of thousands of innocent people will die in teror attacks involving WMD of some sort.

Sec, there are limited seats left in 2004...are you coming or not?

[JimL]

Sec, I believe he did get a dental exam in Mobile. JimL

[Derek2U]

i have more faith in real war heroes. kerry must have learnt
things that bush never did and is unable to at this time. i'm
not sure thats all good but kerry was a heroe & deserves a shot
to lead.

[Secretariat]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040428/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_cheney_2

[Lefty]

derek and others: Bush, as Commander In Chief has proved his worthiness to lead. Kerry can't even give a straight answer about whose medals he threw back. He came home and accused his buddies of atrocities. Turns out he never witnessed any. It was all hearsay. In Detroit he's proud of his SUV's. On EARTH day, he say he hasn't any. This guy a leader? You are joking, right?
Did you vote for Bushes dad or Bob Dole? They were war heros too.
Like the man said, what matters is now. Bush is fighting terrorists. Kerry says he will let the U.N. lead. That's the same U.N. being investigated in the oil for food deals.

[PaceAdvantage]

Going with the known (Bush) in this instance gives me much more peace and comfort than going with the unknown (Kerry). Nothing that has been shown or said over the last few months has changed this feeling one bit.

The stakes are just way too high, and I think the American people will understand this come November.

Let me ask the Kerry supporters this question:

Do you think your man, to date, has gotten his message out to the American people in an effective manner? I have a sneaky suspicion that many if not most Americans have no idea what Kerry stands for and what his plans are for America's future.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
I have a sneaky suspicion that many if not most Americans have no idea what Kerry stands for and what his plans are for America's future.

PA.........I disagree.............


I know all three of his positions on every issue!

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Going with the known (Bush) in this instance gives me much more peace and comfort than going with the unknown (Kerry). Nothing that has been shown or said over the last few months has changed this feeling one bit.

The stakes are just way too high, and I think the American people will understand this come November.

Let me ask the Kerry supporters this question:

Do you think your man, to date, has gotten his message out to the American people in an effective manner? I have a sneaky suspicion that many if not most Americans have no idea what Kerry stands for and what his plans are for America's future.

Pa,

I think you've asked the right questions, but mistyped the name.

So I'm correcting below:

"The stakes are just way too high, and I think the American people will understand this come November.

Let me ask the Bush supporters this question:

Do you think your man, to date, has gotten his message out to the American people in an effective manner? I have a sneaky suspicion that many if not most Americans have no idea what Bush stands for and what his plans are for America's future."


Personally, I don't think any of what's happening will really matter much come November. Voters will be looking more intently in October and November. Both parties are just posturing and trying to stay close at this stage until then. There is going to be plenty of time in the debates to articulate their visions, in fact ad nauseum, on both candidates.

[Lefty]

sec, yes, yes and yes. The American people know exactly who Bush is and what he stands for because they see him as a straight talker. Whatcha see is whatcha get, unlike Kerry who changes according to the group he's speaking to.

[JustRalph]

More in importantly......... The Terrorists Know What He Stands For!

Ask Yourself this question:

Who would Usama Bin Laden want you to Vote For?

[PaceAdvantage]

Of course Bush has gotten his message out, because as leader, he's done it with actions. That's the advantage of being an incumbent. People get to see your administration in action.

Now, all the Kerry supporters will see Bush's actions as negatives and detrimental to the nation, and that's OK. They have every right to disagree with this adminstrations actions (or lack thereof). That is not the point of this discussion.

Kerry on the other hand has nothing but words and a congressional voting record to throw into the ring. With things being the way they are, I'm taking actions over words at this point. Known, over unknown.

Of course, lots could happen between now and November. Maybe enough will happen to get me to change my vote, you never know.

[Derek2U]

would it matter to you WHO kerry picked for VP? how about a muslim woman? a woman? a atheist? a black? a southerner? a RIGHTY? who would you like to see as kerry's running mate?
PS: im working that currency desk today & friday ... what a life
at 4:30 ... see yaAll.

[Secretariat]

Yes, I admit I'm wrong. Bush's message is getting out. Mission Accomplished.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=13&u=/nm/20040429/ts_nm/iraq_carbomb_dc

[kenwoodallpromos]

Surrogatep Both are surrogates for the socio-economic elite of this country- Repubs for big business, Demos for working proffessionals like DRs and Attys and administrators, union bosses(I was in a union). Kerry VP- an Arab, Ralph Nader!!

[Lefty]

Hmmm, Repubs for big bus., Dems for the workers. Somebody has fallen for the stereotypes promulgated by the libs. A constrained mind is a terrible thing...
Doesn't matter who his VP is. We're months away from the election and Kerry has already stepped on his tongue way too many times.

[Secretariat]

Lefty,

It seems not only is Kerry challenging Bush (thread name). Apparently Paul Bremer has as well back in Feb. of 2001!!!! Here's Bremer's quote

"The new administration [Bush's] seems to be paying no attention to the problem of terrorism. What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?' That's too bad. They've been given a window of opportunity with very little terrorism now, and they're not taking advantage of it."

Kind of ironic that Bush would appoint a man to head Iraq who accused the Bush admin in Feb. 2001 of "staggering along until there's a major incident". This pretty much confirms Clarke's statements.

[Tom]

Sec,
You ever post YOUR opinons instead of of someone elses?

[Big Bill]

PA,

You posted:

Do you think your man, to date, has gotten his message out to the American people in an effective manner?

This reminded me of Jay Leno's liner from last night:

Today’s my birthday – I got a lovely gift. Today someone gave me the new John Kerry answering machine. The only problem - it doesn’t have a message.

And Ralph,

Your post:

I know all three of his positions on every issue!

Had me on the floor laughing.

Big Bill

[Secretariat]

OK Tom.

Here's my opinion. What the hell are we doing over in Iraq still when they don't want us there - see below? Evil Saddam's captured and Bin Laden's still at large and they don't want us there, so what the hell are our men still dying over there for?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=3&u=/ap/20040429/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_poll_2

[PaceAdvantage]

Sec,

You're spinning your way off topic with that last post. To attempt to keep it on topic, how about telling us what Kerry's opinion is regarding your last post. Sorry, but his opinion is a little more important than yours, especially if I am supposed to consider him as a viable candidate for President.

[Lefty]

Blumenthal, on Dennis Miller's show tonight said that the american people don't know Kerry yet.
My God, the primary(it seems) went on forever, he's speaking every day, and yet we don'yt know him yet? The man must be a tad sloooow. Or maybe he's another Gore and just has no core.

[Tom]

Sec, yes. What is Kerry's plan? What would your man do today if he were in the white house? (*shudder shudder*).
Throw his medals over the Tigress River?

BTW, the Germans didn't want us there after WWII either. Nor the japanese. That' s one of the annoying little things you have to put up wtih when you lose a war. We are handing over the government in two months......that so long to wait-it's only been a year. I know if you compare that to Kerry's stay in VN it seems like forever, but in real time, it is not.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Sec,

You're spinning your way off topic with that last post. To attempt to keep it on topic, how about telling us what Kerry's opinion is regarding your last post. Sorry, but his opinion is a little more important than yours, especially if I am supposed to consider him as a viable candidate for President.

Well, I'm not sure how I went off topic when Tom asked me to post my own opinions and I did.

I am also not surpised many here want to avoid Bremer's memo about the effectiveness of the Bush pre-911 terrorism strategy.

So fine I'll stick to Kerry. He outlined his plan which was published in the Washington Post. Here it is:

A Strategy for Iraq

April 13, 2004

Washington Post
John F. Kerry

"To be successful in Iraq, and in any war for that matter, our use of force must be tied to a political objective more complete than the ouster of a regime. To date, that has not happened in Iraq. It is time it did.

In the past week the situation in Iraq has taken a dramatic turn for the worse. While we may have differed on how we went to war, Americans of all political persuasions are united in our determination to succeed. The extremists attacking our forces should know they will not succeed in dividing America, or in sapping American resolve, or in forcing the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops. Our country is committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected president in November, we will persevere in that mission.

But to maximize our chances for success, and to minimize the risk of failure, we must make full use of the assets we have. If our military commanders request more troops, we should deploy them. Progress is not possible in Iraq if people lack the security to go about the business of daily life. Yet the military alone cannot win the peace in Iraq. We need a political strategy that will work.

Over the past year the Bush administration has advanced several plans for a transition to democratic rule in Iraq. Each of those plans, after proving to be unworkable, was abandoned. The administration has set a date (June 30) for returning authority to an Iraqi entity to run the country, but there is no agreement with the Iraqis on how it will be constituted to make it representative enough to have popular legitimacy. Because of the way the White House has run the war, we are left with the United States bearing most of the costs and risks associated with every aspect of the Iraqi transition. We have lost lives, time, momentum and credibility. And we are seeing increasing numbers of Iraqis lashing out at the United States to express their frustration over what the Bush administration has and hasn't done.

In recent weeks the administration -- in effect acknowledging the failure of its own efforts -- has turned to U.N. representative Lakhdar Brahimi to develop a formula for an interim Iraqi government that each of the major Iraqi factions can accept. It is vital that Brahimi accomplish this mission, but the odds are long, because tensions have been allowed to build and distrust among the various Iraqi groups runs deep. The United States can bolster Brahimi's limited leverage by saying in advance that we will support any plan he proposes that gains the support of Iraqi leaders. Moving forward, the administration must make the United Nations a full partner responsible for developing Iraq's transition to a new constitution and government. We also need to renew our effort to attract international support in the form of boots on the ground to create a climate of security in Iraq. We need more troops and more people who can train Iraqi troops and assist Iraqi police.

We should urge NATO to create a new out-of-area operation for Iraq under the lead of a U.S. commander. This would help us obtain more troops from major powers. The events of the past week will make foreign governments extremely reluctant to put their citizens at risk. That is why international acceptance of responsibility for stabilizing Iraq must be matched by international authority for managing the remainder of the Iraqi transition. The United Nations, not the United States, should be the primary civilian partner in working with Iraqi leaders to hold elections, restore government services, rebuild the economy, and re-create a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people. The primary responsibility for security must remain with the U.S. military, preferably helped by NATO until we have an Iraqi security force fully prepared to take responsibility.

Finally, we must level with our citizens. Increasingly, the American people are confused about our goals in Iraq, particularly why we are going it almost alone. The president must rally the country around a clear and credible goal. The challenges are significant and the costs are high. But the stakes are too great to lose the support of the American people.

This morning, as we sit down to read newspapers in the comfort of our homes or offices, we have an obligation to think of our fighting men and women in Iraq who awake each morning to a shooting gallery in which it is exceedingly difficult to distinguish friend from foe, and the death of every innocent creates more enemies. We owe it to our soldiers and Marines to use absolutely every tool we can muster to help them succeed in their mission without exposing them to unnecessary risk. That is not a partisan proposal. It is a matter of national honor and trust."

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Blumenthal, on Dennis Miller's show tonight said that the american people don't know Kerry yet.
My God, the primary(it seems) went on forever, he's speaking every day, and yet we don'yt know him yet? The man must be a tad sloooow. Or maybe he's another Gore and just has no core.

Lefty, if you're getting all your news from Dennis Miller, and FOX and Rush, and Hannity, then you'll never really know what Kerry stands for.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Lefty, if you're getting all your news from Dennis Miller, and FOX and Rush, and Hannity, then you'll never really know what Kerry stands for.

I know what he doesn't stand for.........

Strong National Defense

Lower Taxes

Sovereign Rule that thumbs it's nose at the U.N.

Continued movement toward common sense in this country

Not to mention Usama and Jacque Chirac hope he wins

This is all I need to know

[Tom]

Sounds to me like Kerry doesn' thave a clue what is going on and has no viable plan of his own.
Read my lips...if that miserable SOB gets eleceted, tens of thousands of innocent people will die in terrorist attacks. The workd is no longer capable of support bottm feeding slobs like Bill Clinton - it was his complete failrue as a president that allowed Al Qeada to grown and become the world-wide death squad it is today. We cannpot afford to hav ecowards and other vermin in the White House. We need men of action, men of conviction, men like George W Bush.
You libs will be the death of us all yet.....literally.

[Lefty]

sec, it was Paul Blumenthal, a DEm and Kerry supporter that said America doesn't know who Kerry is yet. Not Miller, Not Hannity, Not Colmes etc. BTW, Miller is on CNBC, not Fox. Like Tom says, come join us in 2004.

[Lefty]

Correction: It was Sidney Blumenthal that said that America doesn't know John Kerry yet. I say, if we don't know him by now then we'll never know him because he obviously doesn't know himself. Or he's a complete phony.

[schweitz]

He knows who he is but he doesn't dare show it---he has to try and be somebody he is not to get elected. Its not working.

[PaceAdvantage]

Holy Crap LJB, did you read that??!! Your own guy John Kerry used the term "BOOTS ON THE GROUND"

I think you owe me a damn apology. Either that, or you better rip Mr. Kerry a new one, just like you did to me.

If you missed it, here's the excerpt, straight from the decorated war hero's pen:

We also need to renew our effort to attract international support in the form of boots on the ground to create a climate of security in Iraq. We need more troops and more people who can train Iraqi troops and assist Iraqi police.

[Tom]

Better stock up on Arse Cream, L......;)

[ljb]

Senator Kerry,
Please refrain from using the term "boots on the ground". This is an euphanisim made up by the military-industrial complex to de-humanize the victims in Bush's holy war. Thank you.
ljb

[Lefty]

lbj, once more let me attempt to enlighten you: "Boots on the ground" is an old military term that precedes Bush.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Let me enlighten you. I did not say Bush was responsible for the phrase.
You always want to pass the buck, you wouldn't be applying for a job at the whitehouse would you? ;)

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Lefty,
Let me enlighten you. I did not say Bush was responsible for the phrase.
You always want to pass the buck, you wouldn't be applying for a job at the whitehouse would you? ;)


Ljb,
Let me enlighten you. Lefty did not say Bush was responsible fo rthe phrase. YOU said it was created to dehumanize the current situation, which is not tre (surprize!) and Lefty pointed out, correctly, that the term was coined long befroe Bush took office, which means in effect, you lied, or at least posted false information. I now the tactic-you libs try to make things facts that are not and as long as you get it out there, someone else will refer to it as fact and another Demo-muth is born.
Nice try, but not this time.

[ljb]

Tom,
Let me enlighten you. You are not real good at trying to spin, however why did Lefty feel compelled to tell me the phrase was developed prior to Bush? I stand by my statement. Calling me a liar does nothing to further your argument. But it probably makes you feel better so, carry on.

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Senator Kerry,
Please refrain from using the term "boots on the ground". This is an euphanisim made up by the military-industrial complex to de-humanize the victims in Bush's holy war. Thank you.
ljb


If the term boots on the ground were in use befroe Bush were in offie, then this statement you made is a lie. Simple concept. It was not made up for the purpose you describe.
This is the problem with you libs-you don't even know what a lie is. Some of you don't even know what "is" is. This is probably due to the inherent laziness in most liberal thinkers and the pathetic outcome based education system they have forced on us, whic requries extra-cirricular study to really gain a worthwhile education. Many people do not do this-study and experience is often replaced by cut and paste.
HAND
:D

[ljb]

Ok Tom,
I stand corrected. "boots on the ground" is an euphanism made up by the military-industrial complex. It is being used by the Bush administration to de-humanize the victims in Bush's holy war.
Now do you feel better?

[Tom]

Do you have an immunity to facts?
That much spinning cannot be good for your health.

[Lefty]

lbj, I guess Kerry now a part of the "Bush Adm?" You dance, spin, and weave till you can't move in any direction; that's why you are so forgetful and just moveon to another ridiculous conclusion.

[ljb]

Tom and Lefty,
Why can't either one of you come up with something to say other then the rote rightwing spin?

[chickenhead]

ljb-

I consider myself a lib and even I don't know what you're talking about.

Boots on the ground is a pretty clear idea, I don't think it dehumanizes anything. And Kerry, who I'm not a big fan of, if he has any chance whatsoever of winning, he needs to be tough on the rhetoric, Bush Lite if you will. I didn't think going into Iraq was a good idea, and I do think we would be better off without Bush at the helm, but Kerry is your typical politician, he'll say whatever he needs to say to get elected. I just can't get behind that.

If you are really against what is going on, then Kerry is not your boy, you might want to vote Nader or something.

[ljb]

Chickenhead,
On what basis do you consider yourself a liberal? I am late so have to cut this short.

[chickenhead]

I support the idea of a fairly large government.

I like the idea of some form of limited socialized medicine.

I like the idea of some form of welfare, a helping hand.

I support the idea of some form of national pension system, not the system we have now.

I like the the idea of decriminilizing, and even legalizing, some drugs, focus on treatment and prevention rather than punishment for the really nasty ones.

I do believe most industries need to be regulated fairly tightly.

I think abortion should stay legal.

I think we should lift all sanctions on Cuba.

I'm also conservative on a bunch of issues, but you didn't ask about that.

I could blather on a lot longer, but I don't think anyone really cares about generalities.

[Lefty]

Kerry, used the phrase "boots on the ground." Where's the spin?
You said it's Bush's euphamism. Why is Kerry using Bush's euphamism? Maybe, once again, you're just wrong.