Y’know, Sam, there are times when being right does not help the cause:
Gee, three Purple Hearts in four months vs a cushy job in the ANG, while not even bothering to show up for the last year.
You are not on much more solid ground with
in that GWB actually has been shown to have lied. (I suspect that Kerry can be shown to have lied on some topics, as well, but pretending that the evidence that Bush has lied are simply “accusations” from “Democrats” is, at best, disingenuous.)
Yes, this board engages in non-stop, frequently irrational Bush-bashing.
Yes, Kerry probably isn’t talking about his policy because he either doesn’t have one (that’s different then Bush’s) or he doesn’t want to alienate any voters.
Even so, Kerry still gets my vote so long has he doesn’t come out and say “My plan for reducing terrorism is to invade countries that don’t really have anything to do with terrorism.” We already know that’s what Bush’s plan is, so we don’t have anything to loose by giving Kerry a shot.
I remember the '68 election…or more importantly, the campaign. It was the defining moment that made me a Republican. Prior to that I was pretty indifferent to politics, and although I didn’t like Johnson or his programs, I did like Kennedy a lot.
But I did notice that once Johnson announced that he wasn’t going to run, and Nixon announced he had plan to extricate us from the war while still allowing South Vietnam to defend itself and maintain its autonomy, Humphrey and all his cohorts in Congress immediately did a 180 and began to decry the war in Vietnam and claim it was a mistake, that we never should have been there in the first place, our involvement was a travesty, yadda, yadda, yadda. Yet these very same people not three weeks before, when they thought Johnson was going to run, were going on and on about what a just war it was, the noble reasons we were there, why we couldn’t pull out, etc., etc. And again, this was over a period of just three weeks, so their flip-flops were ridiculously obvious!
I thought to myself, “Man, these guys don’t stand for anything. The only thing they’re interested in is opposing the Republicans.” And this is a theme I’ve seen played out again and again in the years since.
It has always seemed to me that Republicans seem guided by an innate sense of right and wrong, and by their core moral beliefs, and they will hold to these beliefs even to their politcal detrement. Democrats on the other hand (politicians, that is) don’t seem to be guided by such moral convictions. They seem to try to govern to win last night’s polls and next years election. Hence you get Democrat politicians who say things like “I didn’t have sex with her, she had sex with me” (dishonesty, lack of moral conviction), or “I voted for it before I voted against it” (flip-flops).
Anyway, that is the genesis of my Republicanism. I will say that some good things have come about through liberal influence in this country, with the lessening of racism and women’s rights at the top of the list. I don’t think either party is totally in the right or totally in the wrong. Good (and bad) can come out of either party. But in most ways, Republicans are more in line with my way of thinking than Democrats, and I believe I can trust that a Republican will do what I thought he’d do (and what I would want him to do) when I voted for him. I don’t believe those who vote for Democrats have the same luxury.
Speaking of less than honest tactics:
This is supposed to be a response to the statement that Kerry knows what to do in Iraq? Iraq had nothing to do with world terrorism until Bush opened its borders (that Hussein had kept shut) to any random terrorist with a ticket to Jordan, Syria, Iran, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia and a few bucks to buy a trip into Baghdad or Fajullah. If Kerry had proclaimed “I know what to do to stop terrorism,” you’d have a point, but the Iraq situation did not exist until Bush created it last year.
shhhhh. Don’t tell all the people on the USS Gridley that they didn’t earn that Vietnam service medal.
This board != the entire population of the US.
As for the attacks at Bush, most of them, he brought upon himself.
So…
Anyone think giving nuclear fuel to Iran is a really good idea?
Or even offering it to ‘call their bluff’? Is this a bluff that needs to be called? What happens if they accept?
Let’s hear the defense.
The big difference is, this year, Kerry will win the election, and you will be left with nothing to do but gnash your teeth and rend your clothing. Prepare yourself for four years of bitter tears.
C K Dexter Haven:
full of absolute lies and bull-shit… all of it anti-Kerry.
Sam Stone:
Are we living on the same planet? This board is full of 24/7 Bush bashing.
Question is, how much of it has been lies?
I don’t necessarily supplying nuclear fuel to Iran is a good idea. I think offering to supply nuclear fuel to Iran might be a very good idea indeed.
Iran is currently claiming entire innocence as regards weapon intentions. Our crack intelligence services asssure us this is not so. For reasons that are puzzling and obscure, other nations don’t share our keen admiration for our intelligence sources.
OK, we say, you say you don’t want to make bad-ass nuke fuel, you just want good nuke fuel, the kind you can’t make into bombs. Howzabout this? We sell it to you at cost, and you don’t have to spend the money to build the reactors and stuff…IF that’s all you really want to do, then we’ll make it easy on you. IF.
Now, clearly, if they spurn such a generous offer, it goes a long way to proving that their intentions are not as pure as they purport, no? I suspect this is what Kerry means by calling their bluff.
Course, now, he’s a flip-flopper, doesn’t have the gravity and bearing to pull this stuff off, not like when ol’ GeeDubya says hes going to get that second UN vote no matter what, gonna call their bluff, gonna “see all the cards”.
When he subsequently tucked his tail and ran, he did it like a Leader…
This is the full answer from the link you provided in the OP:
Could you point out where it says Kerry’s going to give nuclear fuel to Iran?
Which is still four months longer than Bush was ever there, and it’s only the worst kind of carping sour grapes that would cause somebody to disparage four months of highly decorated, highly valorous service under fire. Tell me, in your opinion, how long does somebody have to be in combat before it becomes worthy of praise?
All this conservative sneering at John Kerry’s war record really just makes the right wing sound completely insincere and hypocritical when they make grandstanding, tearful shows of support for the troops in Iraq.
Should we scrutinize all their Purple Hearts too? Should we belittle anyone who only spent four months in the field?
You either respect military service or you don’t. Respect for combat veterans should not be contingent on their party affiliation. If you’re going to sneer at Kerry’s service (which you did, so don’t even try to protest) then don’t pretend you respect the troops in Iraq.
Of course he’s talking about nuclear fuel. There’s no need to ship oil to Iran, since they are a huge exporter of oil.
Here’s a cite from New Democrats Online which suggests that Kerry doesn’t just think this is a bluff-call - he’s serious about it:
The flaw with this line of thinking is the assumption that the only thing allowing North Korea and Iran to develop fissionable materials is a ‘loophole’ in the law. Like Iran and North Korea haven’t been violating non-proliferation laws and breaking U.N. seals willy-nilly. Just close that loophole in the paperwork, and the world will be safe! In the meantime, now that the loophole is closed, we’ll provide their nuclear fuel for them, as long as they promise, cross-their-hearts to give back the bomb material they’ll have in their possession at the end.
Refusing to change course in the face of mounting evidence that you are wrong is a virtue? God, at least Democrats had the courage to disown their own incumbent and try something different.
That sounds like a good plan to me. I’m all for it. I don’t the US has any moral authority to dicate who can and can’t have nuclear capability anyway. especally since we’re the only country which has ever proven that we can’t be trusted with the bomb.
What?? When?
In the Presidential campaign in 2000, then candidate Bush, in the televised debates, stated that it is the “Commander-in-Chief who clearly sets the mission, and the mission is to fight and win war, and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.” (bold type added)
At least his plan wasn’t secret, huh?
LBJ '68
I disparaged nothing. I made a simple statement - Kerry was in-country for four months before using his third purple heart to get a ticket home. I woulda done the same thing, and there’s nothing wrong with it.
However, four months of combat experience is simply not enough to base an entire presidential campaign on, and that’s what Kerry is attempting to do. He keeps going on about how much he learned in combat, how it would make him a better commander in chief, how good his judgement is because of it, etc. But it’s FOUR MONTHS. His service is laudible, but he’s trying to turn a tour as a junior officer into his being akin to Eisenhower.
I also find his constant trumpeting of his personal heroism to be unseemly. Don’t you? They even talked about bringing a Swift Boat into the convention center, fer crissake. John McCain spent YEARS in a Vietnam shithole, and he REFUSED to leave the country even when the Viet Cong offered it because he wouldn’t leave without his men, and he never made such a deal out of his service. Bob Kerry has a goddamn Medal of Honor and was a Navy Seal, and I don’t hear him trumpeting it or saluting the cameras and ‘reporting for duty’. Democratic Senator Inhofe has a Medal of Honor, and most people probably don’t even know. John Kerry’s constant wrapping of himself in his combat ribbons is creepy and undignified.
In any event, what I responded to was NurseCarmen, spittle-flinging, profanity laden rant at me for my apparent ignorance in not knowing that, and I quote "Kerry was in the Vietnamese theater from 66 to 69. " Which he wasn’t. He was actually in theater for four months, plus a short period of time in a non-combatant role on the Gridley. Less than six months in total, with four of it actually spent “in-country”. There’s nothing wrong with his service - there’s something wrong with NurseCarmen’s nasty and pitifully hypocritical attack on me.
No, it was a paraphrasing of Vegetius: “Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.” Rough translation: “If you seek peace, prepare yourself for war.”