Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
But you guys want to talk about Cambodia.

We'd alternately talk about Kerry's foreign policy plan, but it's "secret"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
We'd alternately talk about Kerry's foreign policy plan, but it's "secret"

Kerry's one-point plan:

• Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry outlined his one-point plan for a better America: the removal of George W. Bush from the White House. "If I am elected in November, no inner-city child will have to live in an America where George Bush is president," Kerry said, addressing a packed Maize High School auditorium. "No senior citizen will lie awake at night, worrying about whether George Bush is still the chief executive of this country. And no American—regardless of gender, regardless of class, regardless of race—will be represented by George Bush in the world community."...
  
  Kerry also spoke on the subject of national security. "This country has embraced a new and dangerously ineffective disregard for the world," Kerry said. "In order to win the global war against terror, we must promote democracy, freedom, and opportunity around the world. My national-defense policy will be guided by one imperative: Don't be George Bush. As will my plans to create a strong economy, protect civil rights, develop a better healthcare system, and improve homeland security."

link

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
link

A link to the New York Times or WaPo would have turned up the exact same results.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
A link to the New York Times or WaPo would have turned up the exact same results.

As I said a few days ago, the tables will be turned in four years when Kerry is the incumbent and Huckabee runs against him.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
But you guys want to talk about Cambodia.

Neil Boortz' take

Notable passages:

"To make this scenario as clear as possible, I ask you to remember one basic difference between George Bush and John Kerry. George Bush is not running on his record of military service during the Vietnam War. John Kerry is. John Kerry is not running on the basis of his recent service as an elected official. George Bush is.

Now … turn back the calendar to earlier this year. George Bush was asking the voters of this country to reelect him on the basis of his previous four years as president and commander in chief. Suddenly Democratic detractors come forward with questions about Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard over 30 years ago. Democratic sycophants were using words like “AWOL” and demanding investigations. Blood had been thrown in the water with the media sharks and the White House press briefings immediately turned ugly. Reporters wanted details – all of the details – of Bush’s National Guard service. They wanted pay records, dental records, medical records, flight records and statements from fellow guardsmen confirming Bush’s participation. The AWOL word had been used and it was George Bush’s job to provide all of the information necessary to prove that it wasn’t so

Now … let’s turn the calendar pages to early August, 2004. A group of Vietnam veterans step forward with some questions and charges about John Kerry’s record of service in Vietnam, the very record that John has presented to the American people as the sole and exclusive reason (save for their hatred of George Bush) that he should be the 44th President of the United States. If the media’s treatment of the George Bush AWOL charges were a guide, we would expect to see an immediate feeding frenzy from the mainstream media. Demands would be made of the Kerry campaign that records, documents and any and all other available evidence be presented to prove Kerry’s claims of heroism."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Bad example. Bush said he'd turn over all the records, and then failed to do so.

Besides, what is it you want?

[Not Me]

Bush will take Florida.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Sorry, forgot.

The Bush Administration's willingness to subordinate the war on terror to its own political interests is far more important to this election than whether John Kerry served under fire in Cambodia in December 1968 or January 1969. They do this shit again and again:

• sitting on Lieberman's proposal to create a Dept. of Homeland Security for months, and then using it as a campaign issue
  
• sending too few troops to Iraq
  
• outing Valerie Plame
  
• stonewalling the 9/11 commission in various ways

But you guys want to talk about Cambodia.

Hah!

Just because the administration is using the clinton triangulation strategy and taking ideas for its own does not mean they are harming national security. And I'm not convinced that DHS has had a material impact on the war anyway.

Too few troops may be a valid critism, though I don't think it was political, I just don't think we have enough to meet all of our needs.

Outing VP did nothing to harm national securuity.

Please explain how delaying the 9/11 commission harmed national security. That group was a joke anyway, and I'm not sure why everyone is so willing to implement their changes wholecloth. Specifically, I think an intelligence czar needs lots of debate from a civil liberties prospective.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Just because the administration is using the clinton triangulation strategy and taking ideas for its own does not mean they are harming national security.

C'mon. The "triangulation strategy" is a political tactic, not a national security one. There's no problem with taking other people's ideas -- that's a good thing -- the problem is exactly when you do it to triangulate for political benefits, not because the ideas are the best.

And I'm not convinced that DHS has had a material impact on the war anyway.

Then the Administration wasted a ton of money and effort which could have been spent on protecting us all.

Too few troops may be a valid critism, though I don't think it was political, I just don't think we have enough to meet all of our needs.

Puh-lease. The military said they wanted more troops -- the limits were coming from the civilians at the top of DoD, if not higher, and the political calculus is as obvious as the nose on your face.

Outing VP did nothing to harm national securuity.

You don't know that, and neither did they. The CIA was pissed off about, which tells you something.

Please explain how delaying the 9/11 commission harmed national security. That group was a joke anyway, and I'm not sure why everyone is so willing to implement their changes wholecloth. Specifically, I think an intelligence czar needs lots of debate from a civil liberties prospective.

Then the White House never should have gone along with it -- they should have fought it on principle. They fought it until the political cost was too high, and then went along with it and stonewalled it.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
C'mon. The "triangulation strategy" is a political tactic, not a national security one. There's no problem with taking other people's ideas -- that's a good thing -- the problem is exactly when you do it to triangulate for political benefits, not because the ideas are the best.

Agreed, but I don't think the use hear harmed national security. Please cite me something to the contrary.

Then the Administration wasted a ton of money and effort which could have been spent on protecting us all.

Quite possibly, in which case it should be blamed on the DEMS. After all, it was Lieberman's idea.

Puh-lease. The military said they wanted more troops -- the limits were coming from the civilians at the top of DoD, if not higher, and the political calculus is as obvious as the nose on your face.

No, they didn't. Several generals had one opinion, and the generals actually running the campaign had another. And where do you propose they would have come from? Europe? If so, I agree. But otherwise, you are not being realistic.

You don't know that, and neither did they. The CIA was pissed off about, which tells you something.

Please explain how outing a CIA agent that hadn't been in the field in years harmed national security.

Then the White House never should have gone along with it -- they should have fought it on principle. They fought it until the political cost was too high, and then went along with it and stonewalled it.

Now you are being unrealistic.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'm with Atticus's analysis of the nation's thoughts on this issue, though my personal beliefs may fall somewhere differently than his. I'm against calling it marriage, nothing more nothing less. I'm for the same rights and obligations but calling it civil union or, really, anything other than marriage.

Its sort of like this: people have relied on the idea of marriage being defined only between men and women for a long time. Why harm them or make them change their understanding of the definition? Why let others change it?

If others want to change the commonly-accepted meaning, let them find a new word to describe it.

He(preserving the English language as we know it)llo

And phrases like "marriage of ideas"? Is that using the "commonly-accepted" meaning of a man-woman union? The word marriage is used for more than a man/woman union. I think the underlying point is that you do NOT see gay unions as being worthy of the same relationships that a man/woman may have. And that's fine, but the "let's not confuse the dictionary" thing is (with all due respect) a bit weak.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Interesting post here by Steve Clemons about disagreements between noted neo-cons Francis Fukuyama and Charles Krauthammer.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
And phrases like "marriage of ideas"? Is that using the "commonly-accepted" meaning of a man-woman union? The word marriage is used for more than a man/woman union. I think the underlying point is that you do NOT see gay unions as being worthy of the same relationships that a man/woman may have. And that's fine, but the "let's not confuse the dictionary" thing is (with all due respect) a bit weak.

Actually, as with many other issues, what I'm endorsing is the right of the majority to maintain the meaning of terms in their own language, as they understand it.

Care to cite an example of two ideas being united (i.e., "married") and given respective rights and duties by government, particularly an example that does not involve a man/woman union? The fact that one can cite "fuck" as an old statute doesn't mean its not just a swear word in the eyes of the majority.

As to the underlying point, I hate to tell ya, but you don't speak for me (or I believe the majority of the right and righteous in this nation). I do see gay unions as being worthy of the same protections, which is the same "relationships", and in fact I posted the same here early when the topic first came up (perhaps even before Atticus!).

But putting words in my mouth (e.g., "you do NOT see") and ascribing only your understanding of my beliefs to me does not lead to a proper conclusion that my basis is "weak". If it was so weak, you wouldn't have to mischaracterize my beliefs and skip a few steps before reaching an unsupported conclusion that they are "weak".

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128862,00.html

Civilians Prepare Troops for Iraq
Friday, August 13, 2004
DALLAS — Some unique training is taking place on the hills of Fort Hood (search), with civilians playing a key role in preparing U.S. soldiers for Iraq.

Civilians, who are paid $11.25 an hour, dress up in traditional Arab garb while taunting and tricking troops in a fake Iraqi town.

All the dangers of Iraq are here, including booby traps like a grenade hidden inside a cabinet. It is crucial for soldiers to learn how to detect, defuse and avoid improvised explosive devices (search) that are killing an average of two American soldiers a day. The Army says using real civilians provides great benefits, in part because soldiers don't have to fill those roles.

"We use 300 civilians on the battlefield here. That would be a lot of manpower that is better used in training and in a combat environment with their units. The second reason is you get an honest reaction out of civilians when you use them to role-play civilians," said Lt. Col. John Siggelow.

Civilians riot, act as homicide bombers, beg for help and hurl insults at the soldiers. The men also act as snipers, playing war games with the real soldiers.

"Anything I can do to help the soldiers because you hear so many die," said civilian George Beaver.

Every soldier must pass through this training at least twice before they are deemed combat-ready. Then they move on to California for more training before leaving for Iraq.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

A friend sent me an e-mail from an RNC hack trashing Kerry on various and sundry grounds, including:

• Kerry also said he was a big fan of Manny Ortez, who apparently plays for no MLB team at all. The nominee then corrected himself and said he was a big fan of David Ortez, another non-existent Big League player.

No, but anyone who knows anything about MLB knows that two of the Red Sox' best players are Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz -- players this troll is apparently unfamiliar with. Since this was doubtless an oral Q&A, the other mistake was made by whoever wrote down Ortez instead of Ortiz.

They're just working so hard to slime him.