Reporting for duty
By tacitus Posted in Democrats — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Posted below is my running commentary on Kerry's nomination speech, edited somewhat
for coherence and a semblance of narrative structure. (The other Red Staters
doubtless being three sheets to the wind at this point, I'll step into the breach.)
Short version? Mediocre to good short term effort; saved by the final third of the remarks; not a home run by any stretch. Long term -- a failure.
Long version? Read on.
Appropriate, really, that Kerry elected to be introduced by Max Cleland. For what
is this year a self-pitying party, Cleland is the ideal self-pitying guy: a
self-pitying guy with a war record. Not only did he serve in Vietnam --
this is important, because you may not be aware that John Kerry himself served in
Vietnam -- he was also victimized by villainous Republicans who questioned his
patriotism. Pure coincidence: John Kerry too was victimized by those who
questioned his patriotism. Well.
And so we begin, as is meet and right, with the admixture of resentment,
half-truths, and urban legend that motivate so many Democrats today. The
resentment being that against the supposed wrongs done; the half-truths being the
unmentioned conditions of Kerry's Vietnam service and his
href="http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html">subsequent slandering href="http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200402200857.asp">supposed questioning href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2098171/">patriotism
Well, this is a political convention, so we can't assume a premium on objective
truth, here. Still, an inauspicious start that says far too much about modern
Democrats.
And we're off! With a poorly-executed salute, John Kerry is "Reporting for duty!"
Wow. I'm going to let this one go.
Next, we see that dearest Mother inspired him
to feminism. I've been noting the
href="http://www.redstate.org/comments/2004/7/26/131312/903/6#6">weird
rhetorical
href="http://www.redstate.org/comments/2004/7/27/73135/7166/11#11">rebirth
the ERA at this convention -- part of the whole
href="http://www.redstate.org/story/2004/7/29/153140/006">party regression phenomenon
Born in the West Wing? Lame, lame, lame.
Lord help us, this is something different. When Clinton hearkened back, however
obliquely, to the '60s, the subtext was one of youth, of something new, of something
fresh in American life. Twelve years later -- and with a very different
personality at the helm -- the invocation of that era evokes a tired past, a
best-forgtten trauma (inflicted, thanks, in small part by the likes of Kerry), and
a regrettable phase of liberal gigantism. As I look at the candidate and the
delegates, and listen to him speak, I realize: they think those were good
times. They think those were noble days of hope and glory. "We believed we
could change the world," intones Kerry, "and you know what? We did." Yeah, you
did. And it sucked: as your brand of liberalism heaved itself onto what we
hoped was history's killing beach in the wreckage of the late '70s, it took one
Ronald Reagan to come repair in part the psychic damage inflicted upon American
society.
So now we hear of his peripatetic childhood. Okay. I had one too. John Kerry as
a child rode his bike into East Berlin ("Where, my friends, I liberated the entire
city"); Tacitus as a child explained the plot of The Fellowship of the Ring to a
North Korean defector. We've all got tales. Doesn't mean much. And it's frankly
mawkish to advertise it like this.
Holy cow! He's friends with John McCain? The John McCain? That settles
it: I'm voting for the Man Who Worked with John McCain. Oh, and with McCain he
"finally [made] peace in Vietnam." Obscene. I guess if you don't count the
concentration camps, the refugees, the political prisoners, the executions, and the
ethnic persecutions, Vietnam is at peace. The peace of the grave, that is.
Considering this is all a direct result of his agitated-for policy preferences,
you'd think there would be some shame here.
Well, no.
Okay, see, a huge problem with this speech is how inside-baseball so many of the
references are. Lots of talking points that will be instantly recognizable to the
aggrieved left, but won't really reach the average American. The Attorney General
violated the Constitution? Who knew? Why all the insistence on the President
telling the truth? Doesn't he do that already? Another glaring
example: "Help is on the way" -- an effective jab and rhetorical appropriation but
for the fact that very few will remember the Bush line from 2000. Also, employed pretty
poorly -- should have been done throughout the speech.
Claiming credit for the Clinton record without mentioning Clinton is effective and
smart. Of course, Kerry was in the Senate minority for six of those eight years,
so his part in the era was comparatively inconsequential. But as a statement of
party public credentials, it's the right move. Even if, obviously unmentioned, the
whole edifice came crashing down in a welter of war and recession.
He lacks the human touch: John Kerry simply doesn't quite know how to bask in a
crowd's adulation. Four times(!) he shushes a crowd that's wanting badly to go
nuts. A sign of problems to come.
God help us -- Al Sharpton gets thanked in a major party's nomination acceptance
speech. Shameful. Just because you ran against them doesn't mean you have to
respect them.
And now another Democratic urban legend: "[After 9/11] there were no Democrats,
there were no Republicans, and how we wished it had stayed that way." Ah, it's as
if the American left wasn't already deranged with Bush hatred
href="http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2001/01/19/lehman/index.html">even before he took office
isn't it? Translation for this passage: I sure wish we hadn't been beaten like
rented mules in '02.
This whole have to/want to thing with going to war: it's pure nonsense. I'm trying
to think here of the absolutely necessary wars in American history, and the
list is short:
The Revolution Second World War
And that's it, really. Heck, we could even have let the Civil War slide and still
ended up with something called the United States of America. Anyway, Kerry is
disingenuous in the extreme. Surprise, yes. Not only did he vote for the
war he implicitly calls unnecessary, he also voted for a supremely unnecessary war
in Kosovo. Most recently, he even advocated
href="http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/169039p-147637c.html">American involvement in Haiti's civil war
A Kerry administration would have given the rebels a 48-hour ultimatum
to come up with a peaceful agreement - "otherwise, we're coming in," he said.
"I would intervene with the international community, and absent an international
force, I'd do it unilaterally," he said....
A recent proponent of unnecessary and unilateral war: what was it he was
complaining about again?
Anyway, I love the emphasis now on his extreme reluctance to make war. This is
going to backfire badly. Here's a secret for you: soldiers hate bad leadership,
poor supply, and lack of direction. Going to war, they don't mind so much. Just
saying. The American people are the same way. Kerry should be telling them how
he'll do war well -- not how he'll do it with reluctance. Horrible, horrible
miscalculation.
Speaking of doing war well, we now have the
href="http://www.redstate.org/story/2004/7/19/21191/4491">secret war plan for Iraq
I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a President who has the
credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost
to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right
way to get the job done and bring our troops home.
Comprehensive and bold. A surefire winner. Most important feature of the secret
plan? The longest word is only four syllables: and that word is American.
That means, like America under Kerry, it's going to work.
Now we get to Kerry's plans for the armed forces. He wants to double the Special
Forces. Easier said than done -- this is a small group for a reason.
Ending the "back door draft" is a great idea, and needs to happen, but you're not
going to do it by just adding a mere
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11971-2004Jun3.html">40,000
> to the force. Indeed, let us note that that very idea of a force increase in that range was cribbed from none other than Donald Rumsfeld. The increase in forces that Kerry claims he'll implement is already happening -- and was proposed to the Congress by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A58293-20 04Jan28¬Found=true">this past January
Ah yes -- the slavish appeasement of the 9/11 commission.
href="http://www.redstate.org/story/2004/7/29/153140/006">Noted
The extended aside to "those who question the patriotism of Americans who offer a better direction for our country" -- totally unnecessary. As too is the insistence that the flag belongs to everyone. This sort of thing isn't going to claim patriotism for the Democrats so much as it will make them look insecure on the subject. One wonders if they contemplate that they lost this particular value as an identifier in no small part because of folks like the young John Kerry.
Enron! Good God. Wow. You'd never know the company doesn't even exist any more.
Wonderful. A strong, explicit stand against privatizing Social Security. And a commitment to expanding the already too-stupendous Medicare drugs benefit. Genius.
A whole lot of anti-outsourcing rhetoric. So much emphasis on this is very surprising. Despite the obsession, most Americans aren't particularly affected by outsourcing, except inasmuch as they're generalized beneficiaries of increased efficiencies in the market. Seems absurd for Kerry to harp on this tragic yet normal market function so out of proportion to its import and impace, yet still claim to be an optimist.
Effective anti-tax language. Totally unrealistic given the spending that's contemplated, but effective.
Very, very good rhetoric against the Saudi royal family. Consider that bridge burnt, and rightly so. This one point alone earns a wholehearted endorsement from me. Pity it came in the context of pie-in-the-sky energy programs, and not in the context of, say, the war.
He finds his stride as he nears the end. You can tell he's feeling more comfortable with the text. Actually some pretty good unifying rhetoric. And talking about faith -- very, very good. I'd say conservatism's efforts to reintroduce religion into the public square are paying off nicely.
Finally, we've got the bit that you know was the hallmark of the imported Kennedy speechwriters: It is time to reach for the next dream. It is time to look to the next horizon. For America, the hope is there. The sun is rising. Our best days are still to come. Well, yeah -- 3 November, I'm thinking, will be a good day. In all seriousness, was this a good speech? Best of Kerry's career, no doubt, but this in itself says little. Did he hit it out of the park? No. Was the delivery spotless? No. Was this the speech he needed to give to break out of the stalemate with Bush? A thousand times no. Oh, there will be a polls bounce -- but as I said, that will fade, and the playing field will equalize soon enough. And so, in a larger sense, John Kerry blew it. This was as easy and as adulatory as it got, and he couldn't quite seal the deal. All the problems that Americans have with him -- most notably his chronic lack of specifics -- are still there. And therein lies our opportunity. He gets no more freebies.
But we do.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | The Kerry Speech — Comments (7) »
Reporting for duty 14 Comments (0 topical, 14 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Heck, we could even have let the Civil War slide and still ended up with something called the United States of America.
I know a few folks who would more then look at you funny for that statement...
...regardless it is a minor point, but your main point is well taken. What about the war going on? You know, those sneaky fundamentalists that want to kill the lot of us? Kerry basically said: I've been in a war, I support the successful wars of America's past and I will win this with war and bring along France because of the sheer force of my personality -- which is basically "I'm not Bush". John Kerry needs all the Hope he can get.
And a righteous war, and I'm glad we fought it, and I'm glad my home State lost it; but he's right. We could have let the South go on its merry way, and ended up with three-quarters (or more, if Seward had still bought Alaska) of our current country. Not as good, not as right, a country, but still, it could have been done.
...the unintentional, I'm sure, reference to President Reagan's farewell letter to the nation? Maybe it is just me, but something about the wording jumped out at me when I read the lines you quoted above. Here are the two quotes:
Kerry:
For America, the hope is there. The sun is rising. Our best days are still to come.
Reagan:
I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America there will always be a bright new dawn ahead.
Personally, I find Reagan's words more eloquent, heartfelt, optimistic and vibrant. Maybe it's because I find the Reagan vision a lot more optimistic and alive than this tired, opportunistic claptrap I've been hearing this week.
I thought the speech was great. Seems like someone is a sore loser...
Cleland is the ideal self-pitying guy: a self-pitying guy with a war record.
That's pretty low, calling this guy self pitying. You really should come up with something better than that. Shame on you.
the half-truths being the unmentioned conditions of Kerry's Vietnam service and his subsequent slandering of Americans there;
He didn't slander Americans there. He spoke out against an administration that was in an unwinnable war, just like he is doing now.
Born in the West Wing? Lame, lame, lame.
Again, sore loser.
"We believed we could change the world," intones Kerry, "and you know what? We did." Yeah, you did. And it sucked: as your brand of liberalism heaved itself onto what we hoped was history's killing beach in the wreckage of the late '70s, it took one Ronald Reagan to come repair in part the psychic damage inflicted upon American society.
Against civil rights and feminism? Maybe you'd enjoy living in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Oh, and with McCain he "finally [made] peace in Vietnam." Obscene. I guess if you don't count the concentration camps, the refugees, the political prisoners, the executions, and the ethnic persecutions, Vietnam is at peace. The peace of the grave, that is.
I think you missed his point. He said he made peace WITH Vietnam, meaning that by finding out about soldiers who were missing in action, he gave soldiers' families peace. Pay attention next time.
And now another Democratic urban legend: "[After 9/11] there were no Democrats, there were no Republicans, and how we wished it had stayed that way." Ah, it's as if the American left wasn't already deranged with Bush hatred even before he took office, isn't it? It's as if the fall '01 elections never happened, isn't it? Translation for this passage: I sure wish we hadn't been beaten like rented mules in '02.
No, he meant that people actually came together and helped each other and did what was best for the country.
Not only did he vote for the war he implicitly calls unnecessary, he also voted for a supremely unnecessary war in Kosovo.
Again, you're missing the distinction. We were told that the Iraq war was to find and destroy WMD, which turned out to not exist, and to destroy terrorist networks, the opposite of which has happened. In Kosovo, the point was not national security, it was stopping genocide, which we did accomplish. Big difference.
Here's a secret for you: soldiers hate bad leadership, poor supply, and lack of direction. Going to war, they don't mind so much. Just saying. The American people are the same way. Kerry should be telling them how he'll do war well -- not how he'll do it with reluctance.
Given your love for war, have you enlisted? Put your money where your mouth is.
The longest word is only four syllables: and that word is American.
Yeah, I do have to agree with you on this one. It was an obvious outreach to republican swing voters.
Ah yes -- the slavish appeasement of the 9/11 commission. Noted.
It sounds more to me like it's fixing national security problems that continue to exist under Bush rather than "slavish appeasement." But that's just my thought.
The extended aside to "those who question the patriotism of Americans who offer a better direction for our country" -- totally unnecessary. As too is the insistence that the flag belongs to everyone.
That was one of my favorite parts! I thought it was very necessary. The Republicans don't have a monopoly on values or religion or patriotism. Just because people disagree doesn't mean they're anti-American. This country was founded on debate.
And talking about faith -- very, very good. I'd say conservatism's efforts to reintroduce religion into the public square are paying off nicely.
Yes, it's nice when people can be religious but not legislate their values.
All in all, I think Kerry hit a home run here. It's going to be a fun election.
"Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. Contrary to what you've just seen, war is neither glamorous nor fun. There are no winners, only losers. There are no good wars, with the following exceptions: The American Revolution, World War II, and the Star Wars Trilogy. If you'd like to learn more about war, there's lots of books in your local library, many of them with cool, gory pictures." - Bart Simpson
Did the DNC pay for your mind-control implants? I especially like the part about:
That was one of my favorite parts! I thought it was very necessary. The Republicans don't have a monopoly on values or religion or patriotism. Just because people disagree doesn't mean they're anti-American. This country was founded on debate.
Uh, friend, you've got Kool-Aid stains on your mouth. Cleland and Kerry know the buttons to push (though as a former Georgian, I can attest to the likelihood that Cleland became deranged after losing).
I have to admit that the line about "republican(sic) swing voters" was funny, in a mean-spirited way (do liberals know any other way?).
WWII - We needed to take on Hitler. He declared war & his subs could attack US shipping and ports.
WWI - Subs again. Plus there was the Zimmerman telegram.
That clue being, don't show up half armed at a battle of wits.
I thought the speech was great. Seems like someone is a sore loser...
Seems like someone likes non sequiturs. And thinks a lot of himself.
That's pretty low, calling this guy self pitying.
Actually, it's pretty accurate. Why not, say, read the links provided? They're not there just 'cause red is pretty.
He didn't slander Americans there. He spoke out against an administration....
The voice of ignorance. Again, read the links, please. Hit Ctrl-F and search for "Genghis Khan."
Maybe you'd enjoy living in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Two nations liberated by George W. Bush, eh? You must be wholly immune to irony.
He said he made peace WITH Vietnam, meaning that by finding out about soldiers who were missing in action, he gave soldiers' families peace. Pay attention next time.
Ignorant again. Read a transcript of the speech given, not the provided text given the press. In Vietnam, Jules.
No, he meant that people actually came together and helped each other and did what was best for the country.
Until the GOP ruined it, eh? Now who's not paying attention?
In Kosovo, the point was not national security, it was stopping genocide....
Don't really know much about Kosovo, I see. Then or now.
Given your love for war, have you enlisted? Put your money where your mouth is.
Oh my. Shall I thrash you on this count, or let someone else? Truly you know little of what you speak on any count.
The Republicans don't have a monopoly on values or religion or patriotism.
Okay. So what?
This country was founded on debate.
Vapid.
All in all, I think Kerry hit a home run here.
Well, he's welcome to you, Jules.
I'm ashamed I missed this at first.
Tac's no chickenhawk, friend. He's a vet.
Next canard?
If the talking heads are any indication (and they very likely aren't), then Kerry's statement "directly to President George W. Bush" was completely misinterpreted as an appeal against negative ads. But I haven't seen anyone blogging accurately on the subject, either. Read it again:
I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush: In the weeks ahead, let's be optimists, not just opponents. Let's build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let's honor this nation's diversity; let's respect one another; and let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States.
The "optimists" line must have been so cliched that it caused everyone to fill in the rest of the paragraph with the standard appeal to civil debate. But, come on. What does politicizing the Constitution--or the unity of the family--have to do with negative ads??
I think this paragraph is extraordinary. It's saying, "George Bush, let's not talk about gay marriage or a federal marriage amendment." And true to that message, I guess, it doesn't mention gay marriage or an amendment. It apparently also left most audience members with a completely false impression of what was said. In a weird way, it seems like this is what Kerry wanted.
Was it a sincere appeal? I can't imagine so. What contender would basically say to his opponent, "It would be really unfair for you to hit me right here"?
I will not pretend to be a campaign strategist. My guess is that this cryptic blurb is a preventative move. The Kerry campaign isn't sure how much further the GOP will push on gay marriage. If they make it a big issue (which the Dems have to fear, as it splits their base from the general population), then Kerry can at least wag his long finger from inside the ugly fray, point back to this "sincere personal appeal," and say that he wanted to take the high road. Bush was the divisive one. It might be the best Kerry can manage if by some chance the GOP wants to start this fight.
Has anyone seen a commentator who recognized this as a statement on gay marriage?
(Aside: Did you hear the beginnings of a rumble in the audience when Kerry said he wanted to address GWB directly? Boy, were they expecting a different message.)
Seems like someone likes non sequiturs. And thinks a lot of himself.
Herself. and I just am posting my opinion, same as you.
Actually, it's pretty accurate. Why not, say, read the links provided? They're not there just 'cause red is pretty.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think showing Osama Bin Laden and implying that Cleland will not protect the country is ridiculous.
He didn't slander Americans there. He spoke out against an administration....
The voice of ignorance. Again, read the links, please. Hit Ctrl-F and search for "Genghis Khan."
Did you actually read that article? The whole thing was talking about soldiers and Vietnamese dying needlessly, and the fact that the administration was fighting an unwinnable war. He did talk about wartime atrocities that were committed by American soldiers such as raping and killing innocent civilians. Are you saying this didn't happen? It's pretty commonly known.
Maybe you'd enjoy living in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Two nations liberated by George W. Bush, eh? You must be wholly immune to irony.
No, my point was that the countries are far from liberated or "free" and they do not enjoy the very freedoms that we stand for and that you were disparaging.
He said he made peace WITH Vietnam, meaning that by finding out about soldiers who were missing in action, he gave soldiers' families peace. Pay attention next time.
Ignorant again. Read a transcript of the speech given, not the provided text given the press. In Vietnam, Jules.
I listened to the speech myself last night, thanks.
No, he meant that people actually came together and helped each other and did what was best for the country.
Until the GOP ruined it, eh? Now who's not paying attention?
Until the GOP diverted its attention from the real targets in Afghanistan to carry out personal vendettas in Iraq.
The Republicans don't have a monopoly on values or religion or patriotism.
Okay. So what?
Okay, so that's been the party's rallying cry, that democrats are sinners with no values.
I think showing Osama Bin Laden and implying that Cleland will not protect the country is ridiculous.
If you can't attack an elected official on his votes and policy positions, what's left? Absurd.
Did you actually read that article?
Yeah. Which is how I know it's Senate testimony, not an article.
He did talk about wartime atrocities that were committed by American soldiers such as raping and killing innocent civilians. Are you saying this didn't happen?
No. But we do know it wasn't any more common in Vietnam than in any other American war -- which is to say, the vast majority of soldiers involved did nothing like this. Furthermore, John Kerry never offered any evidence for his allegations. Can we fairly call this slander? Yes.
....the very freedoms that we stand for and that you were disparaging.
Of course, I disparaged no freedoms. Re-read.
I listened to the speech myself last night, thanks.
And still got it wrong, it seems.
Until the GOP diverted its attention from the real targets in Afghanistan to carry out personal vendettas in Iraq.
And that's why American politics went to heck? What exactly are you arguing here? And aren't you mad that John Kerry and John Edwards voted to prosecute this, er, personal vendetta?
Okay, so that's been the party's rallying cry, that democrats are sinners with no values.
Mostly, I settle for well-meaning but dimwitted.
Hmmm.
This ought to be interesting.
1. "That's pretty low, calling this guy self pitying. You really should come up with something better than that. Shame on you."
Actually Cleland is self-pitying. At every opportunity he tries to flog the tired meme that his patriotism was challenged by Republicans and that he lost his Senate seat due to Republican underhandedness.
The simple fact is that Max Cleland lost three limbs in Vietnam because he played with a live grenade that went off. While he was, technically, in a combat zone it was long after combat had been over. Read up on him. The man is not a hero.
Cleland also lost his Senate seat because he refused to authorize the Homeland Security Dept. It was this bit of partisan nonsense that lost his re-election bid. And, btw, no Republican has EVER questioned Cleland's patriotism. I may think he's a complete buffoon and an idiot, for playing with a live grenade, but even I don't question his patriotism.
2. "He didn't slander Americans there. He spoke out against an administration that was in an unwinnable war, just like he is doing now."
After Kerry returned from Vietnam he joined up with an anti-war veteran's group that eventually testified before Congress. During this testimony, which was replayed for our POWs by the North Vietnamese, Kerry claimed that all American soldiers were guilty of war crimes. He even claimed that he committed war crimes. He equated American soldiers with "Ghengis Khan".
Read up. Learn. Or be mocked forever.
3. "Again, sore loser."
Kerry trying to make a connection between hospital wing, where he was born, and the White House is amusing at best and grandiose nonsense at worst.
Btw there's nothing to "lose". Kerry didn't win anything with this speech. In fact I believe he may have lost the election with it.
4. "Against civil rights and feminism? Maybe you'd enjoy living in Afghanistan or Iraq."
ROFLMAO! Evidently you don't know your history at all. It was the Republicans who championed Civil Rights, not Democrats. It was the Democratic Party that enabled Jim Crow, Poll Tax and Segregation.
As for "feminism" what's so great about it? I think it's pretty amusing that most of the aging feminists of the 1960's are all getting married and trying desperately to have kids.
5. "I think you missed his point. He said he made peace WITH Vietnam, meaning that by finding out about soldiers who were missing in action, he gave soldiers' families peace. Pay attention next time."
WRONG. He said "IN" not "WITH". Additionally he also entered into separate "peace talks" with North Vietnamese officials in Paris. A major violation of law as Kerry was still a member of the Naval Reserve at the time.
Additionally Kerry didn't give anyone squat with this nonsense trip to Vietnam. Finding of lost American remains has been an ongoing issue for the last 30 years and is completely independent of Kerry, McCain or their trip.
6. "No, he meant that people actually came together and helped each other and did what was best for the country."
What? Before or after liberals were calling President Bush "Hitler"?
7. "Again, you're missing the distinction. We were told that the Iraq war was to find and destroy WMD, which turned out to not exist, and to destroy terrorist networks, the opposite of which has happened. In Kosovo, the point was not national security, it was stopping genocide, which we did accomplish. Big difference."
You're one amusing fellow.
The President outlined numerous issues for liberating Iraq. WMDs was only one issue, and done to cover Blair's ass. Other issues included Iraq's supporting of terrorists, homocide bombers in Israel and Gaza, numerous attacks on neighboring countries and repeated attempts to shoot down American aircraft patrolling the No Fly Zone.
Then there are the hundreds of mass graves in Iraq. Including one particularly gruesome mass grave completely filled with thousands of bodies of children with ages ranging from infant to teenager. Total number killed by Saddam? No idea. Total number that people think they can find bodies of? 500,000 - 1,000,000+.
Or don't you remember those TV moments where the residents of Baghdad, and other cities, were crawling through drains and under buildings all in search of the "secret prison"? Where supposedly all the people that Saddam had secretly arrested were held? Turns out that no such prison existed. All those people had been already killed.
Kosovo was a complete joke. There have been NO mass graves found there. Clinton got suckered and we're still paying for it. And I'll add that one General Wesley Clarke showed what an incompetent ass he was when, after 78 days of bombing, it turned out that we hadn't destroyed more than 3 Serbian tanks. Evidently all those "tanks" that the Airforce had destroyed were all decoys.
8. "Given your love for war, have you enlisted? Put your money where your mouth is."
I'm 39 years old. I can't enlist anymore. But when I was 17 years old I joined the United States Marine Corps as an infantryman. So WTF have you done?
No doubt you're a very conviently "anti-war protester". Freedom without self-sacrifice. Nice motto that.
9. "Yeah, I do have to agree with you on this one. It was an obvious outreach to republican swing voters."
Witty this wasn't. Considering how much I'm having to write to SCHOOL YOU. I wouldn't be making disparaging remarks like this.
10. "It sounds more to me like it's fixing national security problems that continue to exist under Bush rather than "slavish appeasement." But that's just my thought."
The 9/11 Commission is a complete joke. The report is full of garbage and it largely irrelevant. It's interesting that the Comission asked Sandy Berger, not a representative of the Bush administration, to identify documents that the Commission should review. This is called "Covering Clinton's Ass".
Additionally this Commission is filled with failed politicians, who couldn't get re-elected even as a joke, a powerful position for which they weren't elected. An elected President giving up Constitutional authority to an un-elected Commission? That's nonsense.
Another point to be made is that clear lack of denounciation of Joe Wilson, who clearly lied numerous times to the Commission, and Wesley Clarke, who changed his testimony in his public review from his private audience.
The 9/11 Commission should be fired for a job badly done and left at that. That Kerry would give them further reason to continue hogging the limelight is irresponsible.
That the Commission members want to continue operating indefinitely with no end in sight, is extremely disturbing.
11. "That was one of my favorite parts! I thought it was very necessary. The Republicans don't have a monopoly on values or religion or patriotism. Just because people disagree doesn't mean they're anti-American. This country was founded on debate."
No the Rpeublican's don't have a monopoly. But considering the Democrats horrible track record it's just plainly a disgusting attempt at vote mongering. The simple plan truth is that Democratic Party has been a significant force in removing all aspects of Christianity from American life. It was members of the DNC, along with the ACLU, that made NYC change "Christmas" to "Winter Holiday". That makes me ill.
Look at the history of the DNC. What "values" do they espouse? Nothing that I'd want to be associated with. The simple fact is that the DNC, in their convention, has tried to out Republican the Republicans. But it won't work.
There are precious few people who actually believe in any of this stuff in the DNC. And Kerry isn't one of them. In twenty years of being a Senator he has not ONCE voted in favor of a military program. Not ONCE has he voted to approve pay raises or benefits for soldiers. So watching him trying to clothe himself in the flag and make like he's a soldiers champion was sickening.
12. "Yes, it's nice when people can be religious but not legislate their values. All in all, I think Kerry hit a home run here. It's going to be a fun election."
Yeah it's nice to try and show how "religious" you are when it has absolutely no impact on your life. Yeah it takes a special courage to ignore your supposed beliefs.
Doesn't it bother you that Kerry, supposedly, thinks that life begins at conception? And yet he still supports abortion on demand? That's disgusting! Trying to have it both ways, that's Kerry all right. Trying to reach out to the pro-choice and pro-life crowds.
....
Fun election? Sure. Whatever you say. When Kerry get's his ass handed to him in November, don't say you weren't warned. Kerry is an empty suit. The reason why Vietnam comes up so often is that Kerry's got NOTHING to show for the last 20-30 years. He's done nothing in all that time.
This is the guy you want as President? LOL.
Come now.
First off, what did Italy ever do to us? the links to Hitler and Tojo were never really "operational collaboration", so we never should have taken Rome. Europe was just a 'distraction' from the only real enemy, which were the specific pilots who happened to bomb pearl harbor. everyone else was innocent towards us.
Second, Hitler never launched an attack on our land, and simple declarations of war and violence (like what saddam and kim jong il would say regularly) doesnt cut it.
We could have negotiated after Pearl Harbor and asked "why do they hate us"? Clearly it was something we did that caused it, and not the fault of the japanese. too bad "NOT IN OUR NAME" wasnt around to save us from our excessive vengefulness. And didnt france and that dude who played "Batman" insist that wars dont solve anything? That proves it!
Another thing: the french (De gaulle) told us the normandy landings would fail. we should always listen to the French and never done anything against their advice. That could have saved us the quagmire of the normandy landings and the huge mistakes we made there. No to mention the atrocities we committed on the defending german troops, even to the point of killing them in battle.
And, the clincher, if we are going to knock off dictatorships, where does it end? Stalin? Franco?
I mean, sure we liberated lots of countries in WWII but was it worth it?
We liberated 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan at a cost of 1,000 lives. we are told it is not worth it. So you have to figure you have to liberate at least 20 BILLION people to make World War II's loss of 400,000 US military worth it.
The math doesnt work - so CLEARLY WORLD WAR II WAS NOT WORTH IT - if we use the standards the Democrats want to apply to Iraq's liberation.
oh, yeah, and surely FDR lied about it because no way was it just an intel failure. they must have manipulated those Japs into war, and or known about it. FDR and Churchill, crafty warmongers!