Regurgitated right-wing pap.

Isn't it time to get real? Bush has gotten us into a serious fix, at home and abroad.

I dont' have much trouble RJ's interpretation until you get to this: "Two wars Kerry has been involved in, and two wars lost, thanks to him and his ilk."

I think it a overreach worthy of Manute Boll to blame the loss of Vietnam on Kerry or "his ilk."

Someday, RJ is going to be wobbling uncertainly down a rather foggy street at night, and he's going to hear footsteps behind him, and with a growing sense of terror is going to blurt:

"Who the fuck is that".

And a calm, measured voice is going to reply in middle class Brit tones:
"Fisk, Robert Fisk, and I've beaten greater cowards than you with this cricket bat".

And then will soundly trash the coward to within an inch, no less, no more, of his life.

"Gentlemen, who's next?"

and then a howling Palestinian mob will descend upon Fisk and perform proctological experiments with that cricket bat

Even your fellow soldiers couldn't tell you were the enemy until you went back to the US and slandered them before the Senate.

When Kerry protested the war, he was exercising his American rights. If that makes him an enemy in the eyes of the Right, I wonder who's side the Right is really on.

Then why did you vote to go to war in Iraq, and then vote against funding our troops over there?

This question is several years old now. Everytime it comes up, it is countered with the fact that funding the troops was tacked onto another bill so that it only constituted less than 1% of the whole amount (or was it 3%?). It was the 97-99% of the bill that DIDN'T apply to funding the troops that was vetoed. Most Americans have gotten an understanding of this quite awhile back.

I will bring back our nation's time-honored tradition: The United States never goes to war because we want to. We only go to war because we have to.

Then why did you vote to bomb the Serbs? Invade Haiti? Or, for that matter, vote to liberate Iraq?

Perhaps you don't understand the distinction, RJ, of proactive military maneuvers and war. Meaning, in which of those instances was a formal Declaration of War issued by Congress? I believe this is what Kerry is referring to.


And just how exactly are you going to get the French and Germans to agree to this?

I would think that Kerry, being a Senator for so long, has good diplomatic relations with many countries and has far more experience than Bush does in foreign policy. If Kerry says he is going to work with a country, I believe him. If it takes an economic boost or something, well that's politics, we'll probably both (countries) benefit from additional trade as well. You scratch my back, I scratch yours. As to exactly what, he probably can't know that until he can sit down with France and Germany to work out a deal. And he can't do that until he's President. He's clearly more capable of undertaking such a task than Bush is.

The UN was invited back into Iraq, Senator. But they fled. How are you going to get the UN back into Iraq?

I would imagine by repairing our relationship with the countries that make up the U.N. That is a bridge Bush has burned, so only Kerry could pull that off.

And we have never been "alone" in Iraq. That, frankly, is a lie. Dozens of other nations have actively supported us there.

Physical support is one thing, emotional support is another. I think that is what Kerry is referring to. (by emotional I mean public opinion, sentiment towards U.S., etc.)


In other words, you support exactly what Bush has done, but you'll pull out our troops at the first politically-opportune time to do so.

I feel quite confident that Bush and Kerry both want our troops out of Iraq. I believe the only difference is a time frame. I believe Kerry's is shorter, and I agree with him. And I also believe he would not do so at the expense of security or achieving the overall objective.

And when images of troops fleeing via helicopter from Baghdad becomes another Saigon

I believe Kerry has far more insight than Bush into avoiding mistakes of the Vietnam war, simply from personal experience alone.


Two wars Kerry has been involved in, and two wars lost, thanks to him and his ilk.

What two wars has America lost? Who was Commander in Chief at the time?

Yeah, that sounds like a "plan"...

Any plan anybody has, has to have flexibility in order to combat terror. Terrorism morphs. If we don't remain ever vigilant, and keep the flexibility to meet new terrorist threats in all the forms they may come in, and get back a favorable status in the world arena, then we cannot win the war. (By flexibility, I mean an attack can come on many fronts, not just the physical, i.e. hitting the water supply or something. But it can also be economic, if say the IMF or the World Banks are brought down from within, and go bust. It's going to take good relations with many countries to be able to keep a vigilant eye on this).

Bush's resolute path will get most of the terrorists in Iraq, I bet. However there are quite a few other countries in the world that aren't Iraq (several hundred to be exact). And most all of them have terrorists. Between the two, only Kerry has the ability to reach out to other nations and achieve the kind of cooperation that is needed to win the war.

boom., that was the most measured and reasoned point by point refutation I have encountered in months - sadly, I am afraid that meanie pants RJ will gloss over it with a glazed expression as so many individuals on both side of the fence are doing with the issues at hand.

Nobody wants to talk about the facts or the truth, it's like the big elephant in the room that is squeezing everyone's space, stinking up the air with its monstrous dumps - but STILL it will not be acknowledged.

I just want some basic answers to some basic questions - simple and truthful. I like to think that your average American can HANDLE THE FUCKING TRUTH and be trusted to make an intelligent decision.

Or maybe not.

Even your fellow soldiers couldn't tell you were the enemy until you went back to the US and slandered them before the Senate.

"When Kerry protested the war, he was exercising his American rights."

Sure. And so is some idiot kid who has a Che Guevara poster on his wall. What's your point?

Then why did you vote to go to war in Iraq, and then vote against funding our troops over there?

"This question is several years old now. Everytime it comes up, it is countered with the fact that funding the troops was tacked onto another bill so that it only constituted less than 1% of the whole amount (or was it 3%?). It was the 97-99% of the bill that DIDN'T apply to funding the troops that was vetoed. Most Americans have gotten an understanding of this quite awhile back."

Then why did Kerry, before he voted against it (lol) say that such a vote would be "irresponsible"?

I will bring back our nation's time-honored tradition: The United States never goes to war because we want to. We only go to war because we have to.

Then why did you vote to bomb the Serbs? Invade Haiti? Or, for that matter, vote to liberate Iraq?

"Perhaps you don't understand the distinction, RJ, of proactive military maneuvers and war. Meaning, in which of those instances was a formal Declaration of War issued by Congress? I believe this is what Kerry is referring to."

Ah, "nuance" and condescension. You gotta love the Left! :-/

And just how exactly are you going to get the French and Germans to agree to this?

"I would think that Kerry, being a Senator for so long"

You wouldn't know it from his campaign...

"has good diplomatic relations with many countries"

Yes, many "foreign leaders" support him. Castro, for instance...

"and has far more experience than Bush does in foreign policy."

Riiight. Playing hooky in the Senate trumps four years of being Commander-In-Chief, during a global war?

"If Kerry says he is going to work with a country, I believe him."

Great! And I have some "Kool-Aid" to sell you...

This guy is a known liar and flip-flopper. Why would you believe a word he says?

You know how I can tell Kerry isn't telling the truth? His lips are moving...

The UN was invited back into Iraq, Senator. But they fled. How are you going to get the UN back into Iraq?

"I would imagine by repairing our relationship with the countries that make up the U.N."

Exactly. Groveling to Frenchmen and Russians and Germans. Oh, and maybe Syrians and Iranians too!

And we have never been "alone" in Iraq. That, frankly, is a lie. Dozens of other nations have actively supported us there.

"Physical support is one thing, emotional support is another. I think that is what Kerry is referring to. (by emotional I mean public opinion, sentiment towards U.S., etc.)"

SPIN! Kerry is lying, and you give him a pass. Color me unsurprised...

In other words, you support exactly what Bush has done, but you'll pull out our troops at the first politically-opportune time to do so.

"I feel quite confident that Bush and Kerry both want our troops out of Iraq."

Yeah, except Kerry is making an ASAP troop pull-out a campaign issue. And the terrorists are listening to this. And they know that if Kerry is elected, they will have Iraq to themselves in due time...

With Bush in office, they will be hunted down until the job is done and Iraq is secure.

Gee, I wonder who these guys are rooting for in November?

"I believe the only difference is a time frame. I believe Kerry's is shorter, and I agree with him. And I also believe he would not do so at the expense of security or achieving the overall objective."

I don't believe he cares about securing Iraq as much he cares about securing his Leftist political base.

And when images of troops fleeing via helicopter from Baghdad becomes another Saigon

"I believe Kerry has far more insight than Bush into avoiding mistakes of the Vietnam war, simply from personal experience alone."

Why? The anti-war movement he played a major role in helped lead the US to "defeat" in Vietnam. In the Senate, he has consistently voted against more money for intelligence and defense spending.

He has learned no lessons. He has merely repeated mistakes.

Two wars Kerry has been involved in, and two wars lost, thanks to him and his ilk.

"What two wars has America lost?"

Vietnam, and Iraq (if he's elected).

Sure. And so is some idiot kid who has a Che Guevara poster on his wall. What's your point?

My point is:
a) you acknowledge he exercised his rights as an American.
b) you call him enemy for it.

I said:
in which of those instances was a formal Declaration of War issued by Congress?

RJ responded:
Ah, "nuance" and condescension. You gotta love the Left!

Whether Congress issues a Declaration of War or not is nuance and condescension to you? You gotta love the Right! Who needs that silly ole paperwork, huh?

Riiight. Playing hooky in the Senate trumps four years of being Commander-In-Chief, during a global war?

A career in American politics trumps a failed, corrupt adminstration, yes.

Speaking of hooky.....Slate says: "Then again, it's easy to forget that before the terrorists struck, Bush was widely regarded as an unusually aloof president. Joe Conason has calculated that up until Sept. 11, 2001, Bush had spent 54 days at the ranch, 38 days at Camp David, and four days at the Bush compound in Kennebunkport--a total of 96 days, or about 40 percent of his presidency, outside of Washington.

Yet by that inference, Bush has remained a remarkably out-of-touch--or at least out-of-town--leader, even in the two and a half years since 9/11. Dana Milbank counts that through his entire term to date, Bush has spent 500 days--again, about 40 percent of his time in office--at the ranch, the retreat, or the compound."

Exactly. Groveling to Frenchmen and Russians and Germans. Oh, and maybe Syrians and Iranians too!

The fact that you believe foreign policy and international cooperation equates with groveling shows that any attempt to reason against American isolationism will fall on deaf ears with you, RJ, so suffice it to say that I disagree with you.

SPIN!
Yeah, except Kerry is making an ASAP troop pull-out a campaign issue.

And YOUR spin here is that Kerry wants to abandon Iraq. He does not. He wants a speedy pullout but not until international forces are in. This is obvious to anybody who has read Kerry's plan.

And the terrorists are listening to this. And they know that if Kerry is elected,

RJ, who are you to convince me that YOU are the one who can see into the mind of an individual on the other side of the planet, with a different mindset, a different culture, a different way of life, and a different belief system, and who also posesses the INTELLECT to KNOW that Kerry is not going to follow through, on the Right Wing Spin that he is planning to run from Iraq.

Gee, I wonder who these guys are rooting for in November?

They are rooting for Bush, because they WANT a holy war. I know this because I keep up with Al Jazeera, their mouthpiece.

I don't believe he cares about securing Iraq as much he cares about securing his Leftist political base.

He, JUST LIKE BUSH, cares about securing our country under his watch. The only difference (and it's a pretty big one) is how to achieve it. And he knows that to secure our country, he has to secure Iraq.

How about me putting it in easy-to-understand terms for someone who spends a little too much time in the All Spin Zone? If he fucks up Iraq, he upsets middle America AND his Democratic political base. He does not win the liberal base by doing what you claim you are certain he will do.

Why? The anti-war movement he played a major role in helped lead the US to "defeat" in Vietnam.

It's the perception of most people that we won the war militarily but lost the war of public opinion.

As of June, less than half of the American public thought that Bush was doing the right thing.

Hell, George Bush does not even have the support of his father!

So, do we really want to get into a spinfest, RJ, about the possibility of having a president who cannot win the war of public opinion, which you acknowledge via your Vietnam strawman, is equally as important as the military war?

"a) you acknowledge he exercised his rights as an American.
b) you call him enemy for it."

Some kook jumping up and down and cheering on 9/11 is also "exercising his rights as an American" and is also an "enemy." They are not mutually exclusive.

American isolationism

Good call, BCB.

This administration is pursuing isolationist, imperialistic and protectionist policies, yet has managed to convince almost half of America otherwise.

Much of the rest of the world sees a more realistic picture, and that is going to cause this country huge problems.

We need to go back to that last corner that was turned and pick a better direction.

Some kook jumping up and down and cheering on 9/11 is also "exercising his rights as an American" and is also an "enemy." They are not mutually exclusive.

I know of no American who cheered 9/11. I also think someone cheering a terroristic attack on the U.S. is not analogous with a veteran protesting a war. Nice attempt to stretch the analogy, but it's not even close.