Watching "Head of State" the other day, I tripped across an interesting line exchange...
Geller: "We should attack Lewis' record."
Lassiter: "How can we attack Lewis' record when Mays doesn't HAVE a record?"
Well, it was something to that affect. And so it led to this question: How does Bush attack Kerry's war record when Bush doesn't HAVE a record?
Enter the very sad campaign. Bush knows there is NO way to fight Kerry on any front concerning war. Kerry's been to war, Bush hasn't. Kerry could've used his family's connections to skate out of going to the biggest meat grinder our government has ever fed it's countries children into, but he didn't. Bush, on the other hand, did just that. Went the safe route into the national guard, knowing he'd stay home, and even skated out of that. MAYBE Kerry went home too early. But so did Bush, and he wasn't even in the shit. So how can Bush possibly stand up to anything Kerry says about the reality of war?... Find reasons to question that reality.
People are lying. That's really all there is to it. Hence, the very sad campaign. Kerry's fellow Swift boat members, including the man he plucked out of the water suring the event in question, stand by his side. Other vets say that Kerry lied to get his medals, that the events weren't as Kerry has said. So someone, somewhere, is lying.
Could it be the few vets that the Republicans have dug up to spew their anti-Kerry rhetoric which have recanted their claims? How about George Elliot, Kerry's commanding officer who originally recommended Kerry for his highest decoration for valor, the Silver Star, and then appears in the tv spot saying "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam" but later told the Boston Globe he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing the affidavit against Kerry? Talk about flip-flops.
See, he signed one affidavit saying that Kerry hadn't told inteh truth about how he killed an enemy soldier. Then he said this to the Globe...
And later changed that statement as well...
The soldiers claiming that Kerry's third Purple Heart (the one that allowed him t go home early) and his Bronze Star under false pretenses were not members of his Swift Boat. None of them have first-hand knowledge of the events, none of them were eye witnesses. And none of Kerry's Swift Boat team have conradicted anything he's said.
So who do you suppose is lying?
Out. Right. Lies. It's disgusting. When one person is clearly outranked in his service to our country in time of war during his youth, he has no choice but to lie to make the other look bad. A very sad campaign, indeed.
I'm not sure why Bush followers still believe in him. All I've ever heard are hypotheticals and misleading claims, the same hypotheticals Bush has used to justify his actions over the last three years. Again, I say three, because until 9/11/01, Bush spent more time on vacation that any other President, so he wasn't actually doing anything. But there haven't been any successful attacks on our soil since 9/11, right? And the hypotheticals are always there... What if Saddam got those nukes together and wanted to bomb us? What if the terrorists try to attack again? What if we show any hesitation/sensitivity/forethought that delays our actions? Right, George. In case you haven't looked it up, after terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, when was the next attack? There wasn't one between 94 and 01. Not because Bush ramped up national/homeland security. And it wasn't because Clinton ramped up security either. Clinton had a smaller army and defense budget. Listening to George's claims, you'd think America was a much safer place, wouldn't you? Based on what? Obviously, you can't base it on the number of attacks since 9/11, since the match the number of attacks in the Clinton admin after his first bombing. But, oh yeah, Clinton got a blow job, so everything else is immaterial.
George rules by fear with a constant hypothetical threat. And for this campaign, his threat is that Kerry can't defend this country the way he can. That's all he has. Bush has made no great strides in ANYTHING other than warfare.
The ecomomy sucks. Healthcare sucks. The job market sucks. Social Security sucks. Education sucks. The environment sucks. Our reason for invading Iraq sucks. Our reason our kids are dying in Iraq sucks. Our reason for not going after Saudi Arabia for their role in Al Quaeda sucks. Our inability to catch the man responsible for 9/11 sucks. Our role in the Isreali-Palestinian conflict sucks. Our ignoring world relationships and world opinion sucks.
Do I need to keep going? Are we really safer now than we were four years ago when we're making enemies faster than we can kill them? Do you feel safer than you did four years ago? Or are you more afraid? Is there anything you can think of that's better now than it was four years ago? ANYTHING? Please let me know, because I can't think of any.
Geller: "We should attack Lewis' record."
Lassiter: "How can we attack Lewis' record when Mays doesn't HAVE a record?"
Well, it was something to that affect. And so it led to this question: How does Bush attack Kerry's war record when Bush doesn't HAVE a record?
Enter the very sad campaign. Bush knows there is NO way to fight Kerry on any front concerning war. Kerry's been to war, Bush hasn't. Kerry could've used his family's connections to skate out of going to the biggest meat grinder our government has ever fed it's countries children into, but he didn't. Bush, on the other hand, did just that. Went the safe route into the national guard, knowing he'd stay home, and even skated out of that. MAYBE Kerry went home too early. But so did Bush, and he wasn't even in the shit. So how can Bush possibly stand up to anything Kerry says about the reality of war?... Find reasons to question that reality.
People are lying. That's really all there is to it. Hence, the very sad campaign. Kerry's fellow Swift boat members, including the man he plucked out of the water suring the event in question, stand by his side. Other vets say that Kerry lied to get his medals, that the events weren't as Kerry has said. So someone, somewhere, is lying.
Could it be the few vets that the Republicans have dug up to spew their anti-Kerry rhetoric which have recanted their claims? How about George Elliot, Kerry's commanding officer who originally recommended Kerry for his highest decoration for valor, the Silver Star, and then appears in the tv spot saying "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam" but later told the Boston Globe he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing the affidavit against Kerry? Talk about flip-flops.
See, he signed one affidavit saying that Kerry hadn't told inteh truth about how he killed an enemy soldier. Then he said this to the Globe...
George Elliott (Globe account): It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here. . . . I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.
And later changed that statement as well...
Elliott (second affidavit): I do not claim to have personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong.
The soldiers claiming that Kerry's third Purple Heart (the one that allowed him t go home early) and his Bronze Star under false pretenses were not members of his Swift Boat. None of them have first-hand knowledge of the events, none of them were eye witnesses. And none of Kerry's Swift Boat team have conradicted anything he's said.
So who do you suppose is lying?
Out. Right. Lies. It's disgusting. When one person is clearly outranked in his service to our country in time of war during his youth, he has no choice but to lie to make the other look bad. A very sad campaign, indeed.
I'm not sure why Bush followers still believe in him. All I've ever heard are hypotheticals and misleading claims, the same hypotheticals Bush has used to justify his actions over the last three years. Again, I say three, because until 9/11/01, Bush spent more time on vacation that any other President, so he wasn't actually doing anything. But there haven't been any successful attacks on our soil since 9/11, right? And the hypotheticals are always there... What if Saddam got those nukes together and wanted to bomb us? What if the terrorists try to attack again? What if we show any hesitation/sensitivity/forethought that delays our actions? Right, George. In case you haven't looked it up, after terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, when was the next attack? There wasn't one between 94 and 01. Not because Bush ramped up national/homeland security. And it wasn't because Clinton ramped up security either. Clinton had a smaller army and defense budget. Listening to George's claims, you'd think America was a much safer place, wouldn't you? Based on what? Obviously, you can't base it on the number of attacks since 9/11, since the match the number of attacks in the Clinton admin after his first bombing. But, oh yeah, Clinton got a blow job, so everything else is immaterial.
George rules by fear with a constant hypothetical threat. And for this campaign, his threat is that Kerry can't defend this country the way he can. That's all he has. Bush has made no great strides in ANYTHING other than warfare.
The ecomomy sucks. Healthcare sucks. The job market sucks. Social Security sucks. Education sucks. The environment sucks. Our reason for invading Iraq sucks. Our reason our kids are dying in Iraq sucks. Our reason for not going after Saudi Arabia for their role in Al Quaeda sucks. Our inability to catch the man responsible for 9/11 sucks. Our role in the Isreali-Palestinian conflict sucks. Our ignoring world relationships and world opinion sucks.
Do I need to keep going? Are we really safer now than we were four years ago when we're making enemies faster than we can kill them? Do you feel safer than you did four years ago? Or are you more afraid? Is there anything you can think of that's better now than it was four years ago? ANYTHING? Please let me know, because I can't think of any.
<$BlogCommentBody$>
<$BlogCommentDateTime$>
<$BlogCommentDeleteIcon$><< Home