Hmm. Which president has entered into a damn fool war that’s been the best recruiting tool Osama has ever seen? Which president has given Osama the war between Islam and the West that Osama has been wet-dreaming about for years? Which president has played directly into the hands of a madman?
I assume you’ll be voting for Kerry.
Daniel
Don’t talk nonsense. There is no war “between Islam and the West” except in the minds of terrorists like ObL. This is Ann Coulter talk.
And I thought your side were the ones swearing up and down that Iraq was a secular state, not a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism. If you are talking about the Taliban, I seriously doubt that ObL were hoping in their heart of hearts to have their training camps smashed and their safe haven overthrown.
Keeping in mind, as we should, which way Senator Kerry voted on the use of military force on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Regards,
Shodan
Of course you’re right, Shodan: there IS no war between Islam and the West. I wasn’t clear, however: the modifier “has been wet-dreaming about for years” was vital to that sentence. Specifically, Osama doesn’t need an actual WbIatW; he just needs the APPEARANCE of one, so that he can use that appearance as a recruiting tool. The attack on Iraq is close enough for his purposes, clearly.
Iraq was a secular state, of course. Or, rather, it was a Hussein-worshipping state, full of the sort of idolizing that bin Laden despised. Now that Hussein is gone, it’s kind of being overrun with fundamentalist Muslims.
And I supported, and support, Bush’s initial attack against the Taliban: it was the best thing he’s done while in office. If he hadn’t essentially abandoned the country, I’d consider it a great foreign policy success.
Kerry voted for the war. I won’t forget that, don’t worry.
Daniel
At the risk of intruding unwanted clarity…
Indeed, Kerry voted to place certain powers at the disposal of GeeDubya. You will recall that the purpose of that resolution was to force Saddam to disgorge the dreadful WMD held in “vast stockpiles”. Mr. Kerry has made it abundantly clear that he regards his trust in GeeDubya as woefully misplaced. As well he might.
To grossly oversimplify such a position as voting “for the war” is to sanitize the record. Mr. Bush misled the Congress and the people. Whether he misled us out of ignorance or arrogance is a question too trivial for our consideration. The fact remains he is unfit for the office he holds.
Euclid, much as I adore you, I gotta disagree this time. Inasmuch as it was possible to vote for the war, Kerry did so. But y’know, back in late 2002 and early 2003 the Democrats were only starting to remember that they didn’t need to be freedom-kissing Bush’s ass on every issue, were only starting to realize that being Republicans Lite wasn’t gonna win them any more elections. Kerry, bless his heart, didn’t show any especial bravery before that; he towed the party line (Republican party, that is) in this case along with the rest of the Democrats.
Was he misled by the President? Sure he was – but he had at least as much information as you and I had, and you and I knew better than to support this damn fool war at that point. He could’ve voted against it; he didn’t, and I’m sure it was for political reasons.
All the same, brownnosing the president on a stupid policy is very different from initiating the stupid policy in the first place. Kerry’s fault in this case was a lack of political courage; Bush’s fault was far, far worse.
I’m voting the lesser of two evils, make no mistake: when given the choice between JR Ewing and Nyaralathotep the Crawling Chaos, you better go Ewing.
Daniel
(Well, I guess Euclid is better than 'luci, maybe oughta just quit while I’m ahead…)
No, Lefty, I’m willing, in the absence of evidence, to take his word for it. I can quite see his point. The wording of the resolution supports his take on it, the Bushiviks simply determined to regard the resolution as carte blanche, in much the same way as they regarded a loss in the popular vote as a ringing mandate and endorsement. Their capacity for self-delusion seems to have no limits.
But its a small enough point to shrug off.
Woo-hoo! 7,000! Anybody wanna go get drunk, maybe moon some Naderites?
First of all, I don’t know if you know this, but the President is NEVER on vacation, at least not as you and I know it. I can guarantee you that he was working, just not at the White House.
In addition, as the President, he still has to go out and press the flesh. If one must do that, I consider it far better to be getting a photo op reading to schoolkids than at a fundraiser for re-election.
You guys pick the lamest stuff to gripe about when there are far better things to bitch over.
Not much fear of that…
In the interests of clarity, not quite. There is no mention of “vast stockpiles” in the resolution and thus your use of quotation marks is misleading.
And the purpose of the resolution as stated is as follows:
I would be interested in a cite where Mr. Kerry has actually come out and renounced his vote on Iraq. (As well as his reasons for voting against the first Gulf War, but in favor of the second. I assume he blames that one on being misled as well. Or maybe he is just a strategic simpleton.)
So has Kerry come right out and said that when he voted “Aye” when asked if
he didn’t mean it?
Has he been asked about other things that he voted for, but meant not to? Why doesn’t he just come right out and say, “When it comes to the decision on whether or not to use force, I am not to be trusted, as I don’t have a clue no matter how I vote.” At least this would be upfront, and it is certainly consistent with his record.
Regards,
Shodan
Thank you, Mr. Shodan, for the link. Now, if you would be so kind as to point me to the text in the resolution that authorizes the president to prematurely end the inspections without agreement by the Security Council and to unilaterally invade Iraq, that would be great.
Of course, I agree with the general point of your post; Bush is clueless and should not have been trusted. But perhaps you and I have the luxury of hindsight, or perhaps we are simply too jaded and cynical. Alas, we have only to shake our heads and wonder at what might have been had Kerry not voted as he did…
But, I am heartened with your link, the link that supports our wise and esteemed coleague, the poster formerly known as Elucidator, in that the resolution was very much written as Mr. Kerry suggests, and not as a resolution for war. So much of the text specifies actions in concert with the United Nations, and the Security Council that it can hardly be read otherwise. Even the small portion you quoted, and specifically Section 2 makes this clear. Thanks!
Shodan, Airman Doors - has reading comprehension mysteriously plunged overnight? Please desist from putting words in my mouth or being disingenuous. To wit:
My point was that Sam Stone’s assertion that absence from the Senate chamber while conducting a presidential campaign constitutes a strike against John Kerry’s job performance is one-sided and specious. If Kerry can be criticized for being away from work inordinately, then fairness dictates the Shrub must also be criticized for being away from work inordinately. But if it is OK for the Shrub to be away from the office (as the Bush apologists have responded), then it must also be OK for Kerry to be away from the office. After all, as Airman Doors asserts, public servants are always “on the job”.
I am curious, however, as to how $1,500 hot dogs and fundraising junkets constitutes the business of the nation:
And let’s not forget that all of this elitist fat cat pandering is being done at taxpayer expense! “Bush taps HHS funds for trips”
…and these things were done in 2002! Not even an election year! In contrast, the House Appropriations Committee cites $243,862 in HHS taxpayer dollars for Clinton “mixed use” events (political trips + legitimate government business) over ALL FOUR YEARS of his second term, while Bush has billed the HHS $210,000 in just the first 20 months of his term (as of the writing of this article). And all of that during a recession while handing out tax cuts to the rich. (Um, hey - you guys haven’t forgotten all that pesky peace and prosperity of the Clinton presidency, have you?)
It’s reasonable to question Kerry’s attendance record during the campaign season. Just don’t be a frickin’ hypocrite and not apply those same standards to the incumbent.
I’m not being a hypocrite. I’m not cool with all the fundraisers that Bush has been doing, but that doesn’t change the fact that the business of the country doesn’t change because Bush is in Crawford rather than the White House. He still has to make the decisions, he still has to react to events.
The difference between him and Kerry in that respect is that if Kerry doesn’t make Senate votes, he’s not doing his job. After all, that is his sole job, introducing and voting on legislation, neither of which he has been real dilligent about doing. Bush on the other hand cannot escape that responsibility no matter where he is or what he’d rather be doing.
That soooooo is not how public service works, and I barely have time to list all the reasons why you’re mistaken. But I’ll give it a shot:
Introducing legislation does not require physical presence on the Senate floor. If you can work on a business report from a laptop in Starbucks, you can write legislation from the campaign trail. Actually putting the darn thing in the hopper gets done by staffers.
Introducing legislation is hardly the principal component of public service. It’s an important component, but hardly the entire raison d’etre. Kerry’s 20-year record indicates he clearly chose to be one of those legislators who is a “watch dog” for his constituents. Congressional investigations are an essential “check” on the powers of government (from the “checks and balances” part of federal design?).
Voting is arguably one of the most minor components of public service. By the time legislation gets to a floor vote, almost everybody already knows exactly how things will go down - who is for it, who is against it, the deals struck under the table to sway votes, prepared remarks for the floor “debate” (which is nothing of the kind - it’s more of a masturbatory PR event). It’s a lot like a courtroom. A lawyer never asks a question for which he doesn’t already know the answer. ALL, I repeat, ALL of the real work of legislation takes place long before somebody raises their hand and shouts, “Aye!”
The Senate has a Republican majority. Keeping in mind the fact that everybody already knows the outcome of votes prior to their actually being cast, do you really think that physical presence on the Senate floor is necessary 100% (or hell, even 25%) of the time? Political parties are quite well organized (despite appearances!), and if the Democratic minority tells any of its Congresspeople on the campaign trail, “Hey, dude - next Tuesday, your raised hand will make the difference on this piece of legislation”, you can be damned sure they would show up. Otherwise, why bother fighting a foregone conclusion when you can be making other positive accomplishments elsewhere?
A public servant is beholden to her/his constituency. They are the ultimate judge of job performance. I think the historical record demonstrates John Kerry’s employers (i.e. his district) approve of his job performance sufficiently to keep sending him back to Washington to do the people’s work. For you to pick out a single Congressional session that happens to coincide with a national election campaign as evidence of poor job performance stemming from lack of attendance is disingenuous at best. Not to mention intellectually dishonest. Especially in light of the fact that we have just established that physical presence on the Senate floor is in no way a determinant of effective public service.
Like most republican stereotypes this one is true. Kerry has a lifetime score form the Americans for Democratic Action of 93 and Kennedy has a lifetime score of 88. Quoting from a NY times story about him from FEB 8 "But around the Senate Mr. Kerry is often described as aloof, patrician… "
Introducing legislation in the Senate does, in fact, require that the legislator be present. Staffers do not, as a rule, address the Senate, debate bills, or vote.
Certainly not of Senator Kerry’s less than dazzling Senate career. He has sponsored rather little legislation, and much of what he has done is largely ceremonial - National Cheese Day or the equivalent. One of his campaign pushes is health care. Number of health care bills he has sponsored and gotten passed - zero. This bodes ill for his future as a President.
Didn’t know you were such a Kenn Starr fan. 
And did you have any evidence at all that Kerry has done any significant amount of work as described above? I thought you said in point #1 that his staffers did all of that for him.
Here you are probably correct. Kerry’s presence in the Senate has been largely irrelevant to the real business of the country.
So Kerry only votes when his Senate bosses tell him to? Not much of a leader, apparently, is he?
First you were a Ken Starr fan. Now it’s Strom Thurmond.
Would you say that Nixon’s re-election showed that he was well qualified to be President?
Kerry is a liberal stiff - an empty suit with big hair and almost nothing by way of substantive achievement during his tenure. His record indicates that he would be an ineffectual President. He has no genuine ideas, no vision for the country, in fact, nothing but “electability”. What he would do if elected as President is likely what he did after being elected Senator - sit on his hands and prove that he has no clue about foreign policy or the economy.
And this is the person who makes Democratic hearts beat faster. Good luck with that.
Regards,
Shodan
First, we must acknowledge friend Shodan’s kindly wishes for “good luck”. He will no doubt be gratified to hear of CNN’s latest polling numbers (50% Kerry, 44% Bush). As well, his criticism of Kerry for failing to bring universal health care to America, while ill placed, reveals a sympathy heretofore unknown. I had no idea that he stood with such firm solidarity in favor of our plans to ram socialized medicine down the throats of the American public. Might we expect his fervent support, as well, for Kerry’s plans for a Constitutional Amendment forcing Eagle Scouts into gay marriages? We wait with bated breath.
Yet we are troubled, concerned with certain symptomatic mental tics. Leaping from “re-election” to Strom Thurmond? Vaulting from Congressional investigation to Ken Starr? Has the dread scourge taken another victim?
Of course, I am speaking of Cognitive Dissonance, the number one threat to our Republic! How many of our Republican cousins are to be cut down like our Beloved Leader, and his loyal minion, Shodan? When will we awaken to our peril, and ACT! When your CD volunteer comes calling, think of poor Shodan and give, and give generously!
Yes, but what does this have to do with Bush?
(Spoken in the context of a ex-submariner who is NOT a Bush supporter.)
In fact, I think so little of Bush that I absolutely will not vote for him, after voting Republican in every presidential election since I could vote.
I’m really disappointed that Dean is out of the race. He was the only Democratic presidential candidate to have an “A” rating from the NRA…
So who’s the Libertarian candidate this year?
At the risk of sounding repetitive, Shodan, I will reiterate my suspicion that reading comprehension has dropped precipitously. Your continued willful misinterpretation (dare I say “spin”?) of rather basic facts of the operation of the federal legislature is unfortunate. I have oodles of patience, though, and I haven’t given up on you yet. 
Hmmm, interesting. Don’t recall writing anything about “address the Senate, debate bills or vote” being done by staffers. Let’s go to the replay booth:
I said Actually putting the darn thing in the hopper gets done by staffers. Well what do you know?! You misquoted me. Go figure.
Again, you’re making a specious connection. It has already been firmly established in this thread and elsewhere that number of bills sponsored, while certainly a point of emphasis for some legislators, is in no means the be-all end-all of evaluating job performance as a public servant. That’s like saying you should be Doper of the Month exclusively because you’ve made the most posts. You’ve got my vote, though.
a) OSC is not a part of the Constitution. The need for an OSC actually stems from the rampant corruption in the Reagan administration which warranted a more criminal justice type of approach to Republican malfeasance.
b) In the interest of “fighting ignorance”, I direct you to the Office of Special Counsel. Ken Starr is a bad example, especially considering his multi-million dollar gossip column at taxpayer expense ended up proving precisely nothing. As opposed to, oh, I don’t know, Iran Contra (gee, wasn’t Kerry a mover and shaker with this investigation?), in which actual criminal charges and jail time resulted? Trust me, kiddo, if you want to stack proven Republican criminality versus Democratic criminality, Republicans will end up doing a lot more time.
Again, your inability to understand context or maintain perspective is disappointing. Once more, we’ll go to the replay:
I said …any of its Congresspeople on the campaign trail… Hey! Another misstatement. The issue at hand has to do with reconciling campaign efforts with the relative importance of some floor votes versus other floor votes. Case and point, Kerry and Edwards returned to D.C. for the Senate’s renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban. Sufficient Republican senators (with the official backing of the Bush administration, mind you) crossed the aisle that if all Democrats (with the unfortunate exception of Zell “Turncoat” Miller) voted with the Republican defectors, the AWB could be renewed. Your remark is therefore an obvious non sequitur.
Frankly, arguably the most valuable public service any U.S. citizen can be involved in today is the ouster of the Bush administration. As the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party, his leadership in that public service has thus far been exemplary.
HA! This is the funniest thing you’ve said yet! Indeed, an apt example. Regardless of his doddering white supremacist streak, Strom Thurmond was indeed a successful public servant. His constituency, white racist redneck mysoginistic moron assholes, was well represented by his efforts to repress minorities and women, so therefore they continued to send him back to Washington.
Compared to the Shrub, Nixon was far and away more qualified to be President. Not to mention the fact that Nixon actually got more votes than his opponent. Nixon may have been a sweating unprincipled predator, but he had scads of talent. His fall was due largely to his personal insecurities, that despite his intellect and bootstrapping up from the poor side of the tracks, he still felt looked-down-upon by the wealthy political elite of Washington. His criminal behavior was motivated by a desire for power over those he thought despised him. And even then, we cannot dismiss Nixon’s laudable efforts, despite the political costs, at maintaining the momentum of the Civil Rights movement.
Has Dubya done anything similar for his fellow citizens? I didn’t think so. And repaying the donor class with tax breaks and gutted legislation doesn’t count.
Don’t you mean "no vision for the country that I, Shodan, agree with? Get real - if you don’t think Kerry (or any of the candidates to replace Dubya, from Nader to Larouche, for that matter) have no ideas or vision for our nation, then you quite simply are not very well informed. You may not agree with their ideas, but they have them nonetheless. Fortunately for us all, the vision we citizens have of our nation is not incumbent upon Shodan’s approval.
Yes, and we all know that if someone else sticks a label on you, then it must be true, right? Kerry’s pro-NAFTA and pro-faith-based organizations are hallmarks of far-left radicalism… :rolleyes:
I’m simply amused by the Bush-partisan argument that Kerry hasn’t gotten much done in the Senate in 19 years, but he is still irresponsible for being out campaigning instead of working in Washington, where he wouldn’t be getting much done …
Put your heads together and get the story straight, people.