Letter To Kerry From Bush Campaign

I disagree with that. McCain isn't campaigning for Kerry and bashing Bush at every turn, nor did he speak at the DNC. He may have leftward tendencies (I consider them centrist), but he isn't like Miller, who is a blatant right-winged republican calling himself a democrat.

I think it's a tad bit of a stretch.

 

We don't want him back.....

 

We don't want him back.....

 

If he did it himself it wouldn't be brilliant campaigning. He has minions/supporters do it, just like his daddy. Remember Willie Horton?

 

Khan,
In other words, your statement was untrue.

BLD

 

No. This is what I said.
"Top five campaigners maybe. To avoid the war and then attack Max Cleland, John McCain and Kerry on their war records; and then get away with it. It's amazing."

We apparently dissagree on whether this was part of the campaign. This is still being proven. Like the lawyer for the campaign turning up in the Swift Boat ads. Just a big coincidence?

I see your point but my skepticism won't let me think this is all being done without Bush's knowledge. The reason I said he's in the top five campaigners is because the smear campaign goes on while he seems to keep his hands clean.

 

Khan,
The fact is, Bush is calling for the disallowance of all 527s, including the SwiftVets, and has asked John Kerry to join him. Kerry has refused. If Kerry was serious about getting rid of these attack campaigns he would join Bush, but instead he just keeps whining about one group -- the SwiftVets. If he would call for the ending of all the Moveon.org ads and others he'd sound a lot more credible.

BLD

 

Agreed. I think it's a timing thing. He probably feels he's been hit so he wants to hit back before calling the truce.

 

I figured something like this would happen once they changed the rules on campaign ads.

 

Followers?

It is my belief that people like Carl, Engineer, etc. bash President Bush and vote for out of touch liberals because they believe it is what academics are supposed to do. Some people want so badly to belong to the academic community, they will ignore the atrocious Senate record of John 'Battle-Chin' Kerry.

But, the reality is (for the most part anyway) academia wants nothing to do with them or their DL credentials. Most liberal academics (you know, those tolerant and accepting people) openly speak out against distance education. They do not want to be associated with DL or it's products because they feel it devalues their 'elite' degrees.

As it stands, academia will never support DL. Even if DL grads are able to gain employment at the college level, their traditionally educated and very liberal colleagues will be snickering behind their backs, and calling their credentials fake. On the other hand, conservatives generally support non-traditional learning. They have clearly demonstrated their pro-DL position.

So, in light of this, the question is why do the fellas mentioned support a guy like Kerry? Why do they support a group who truly believes that DL credentials cheapen higher education? Is it because they are followers? Is it because they feel it is expected of them? Or, do they honestly believe Kerry is better for America?

Schools like UoP are a complete joke to traditional academics! Vote for a group that will fight to see that DL students are treated equally. Vote for those who will promote, not vigorously oppose, non traditional learning. Re-elect Presdident Bush, one of the best to ever serve us!

 

Well, I'm not so sure about that being the motivation. Obviously they have had some faulty thinking about these issues , but I really doubt that most have a liberal viewpoint because of academia. Perhaps they just really are bonafide leftwingers?

BLD

 

Vote for the Johns! They will save the world!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v385/high-speed-para/bakling.jpg

 

Re: Followers?

Ahh, I can smell a true Faux News Network drone a mile away.

As you obviously cannot read, this is not about John Kerry. It is about a failed Presidency.

Ask yourself a few questions:

1. Has any Bush policy (both Bush Sr and Jr) created a single job?

No - nota, zilch,

2. Has any Bush policy created a single allie?

No - not one.

3. Name a single accomplishment of Bush during his tenure as Governor

I can't name one. I can tell you that the schools in Dallas are worst now that when Ann Richards was in office.

4. How much money has Bush saved while in office?

Not a single one. His policies haves increased the national debt each and every year he has been in office.

Who cares about Kerry. Bush managed to fanagle his way into the Presidency. He was handed the chance on a silver platter, but still pissed it away. 4 years is enough. Time for a change.

I can see that the Neo-Cons like Bush04 are such true beleivers they can't the truth.

Time to turn off the tube and find out what is really going on in the world.

 

Bush's lame attempt to reform soft money is so transparent. If he was real man, he would simply stand up and point out the Swift Boat people are a bunch of liars and fire everyone involved. Of course, he doesn't have the character to ever admit he has been caught in the act or is wrong (hence Bush's flip flop on WMD - none of which ever existed).

If I were Kerry, I wouldn't agree with Bush's grandstanding. Unfortunately, when someone lies, you have to hit back with full force or set yourself up to lose. I think the greatest example of that is Willie Horton. Bush Sr. lied about during this bid against Dukakis. (notice, I said lied - he didn't misrepresent, he lied - which seems to be the modus operandi of the Bush family).

Bush talks about ethics and morality - and the fact that god is on his side. Unfortunately, ethics and morality is more than merely going to chuch and shoving your beleifs down the throat of others. It is about being honest with yourself and the people you are around. Bush has certainly not be honest with the American people and, in my opinion, is not worthy of being President.

I have $1000. in outstanding bets with colleagues (including a full course meal at SF's finest dining facility) - Bush will lose - and I will gloat when the Chimp is being walked out in shame like his daddy.

 

Since this thread is about letters, let's consider this open letter to Kerry from Oliver North....


Bring it on, John
Oliver North

"Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: 'Bring it on.'" -- Sen. John Kerry

Dear John,

As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef with President George Bush about your war record. He's been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign.

I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved.

This really isn't about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, "the job isn't finished."

Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren't in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn't really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have all that bogus stuff "seared" into your memory -- especially since you want to have your finger on our nation's nuclear trigger.

But that's not really the problem, either. The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John.

When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote "The New Soldier," which denounced those of us who served -- and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities.

On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam." And you admitted on television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed."

And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions ... the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners."

Your "antiwar" statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here's what some of them endured because of you, John:

Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to be punished." He wasn't released until March 14, 1973.

Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors "repeated incessantly" your one-liner about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973.

Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason the war dragged on." He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973.

John, did you think they would forget? When Tim Russert asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed "atrocities," instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words "were a bit over the top." Does that mean you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John. Either way, you're not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less commander in chief.

One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."

Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?

 

Guess again! Nice try, though...

Actually, Mr. Engineer, you guessed wrong. I never watch Fox News. When I have time, I prefer to watch late night MSNBC programs. Scarborough Country is one of my favorites; especially when Pat Buchanan is on as a guest or temporary host.

Unfortunately, I don't get to watch much television anymore. This is partly because gatekeeper elites at the ABA refuse to approve DL law schools. So, when I am not studying, I am traveling to and from school everyday in heavy city traffic.

In any event, your attempt to bash Bush doesn't pass my scrutiny test. It doesn't pass muster with the rest of America either. This is demonstrated by President Bush's improving poll numbers. And his convention hasn't even started yet! Kerry is done.

As far as the economy goes, Bush inherited a falling economy. In fact, the DJ started falling before Bush even had a chance to use the White House powder room. See http://www.djindexes.com/jsp/avgDecades.jsp?decade=2000

Further, only months into his Presidency, terrorists whom you wish to have as allies, flew airplanes into the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon, and the fields of Pennsylvania; thereby killings thousands of innocent Americans. How quickly you pacifists forget! I will never forget. Never!

Of course, many people like you probably blame Bush for the terrorist attacks. You actually choose to believe that these Islamic monsters planned their attack in the early months of the Bush Administration. You forget about how they attacked, and planned more attacks, throughout the entire Clinton Administration.

Now is not the time to talk about allies or spending, Mr. Engineer. Now is the time to destroy those who hate us, even if no one wants to help. We must defend ourselves, regardless of the cost. We can't rely on the likes of France to come to our aid, assuming they actually had something to offer.

Our President is taking steps necessary to protect our great country from dangerous foreign enemies. If this requires spending, then so be it. Put me, my kids, my grand-kids, and even my great grand-kids in debt if need be. I'd rather them have a deficit than no world to live in at all.

Evil must be wiped off this planet, and Saddam is evil. He ignored international law, murdered his own people, and even shot at our fighter jets. So, WMD or not, Bush has all the justification he needs for the invasion of Iraq. See http://billroggio.com/archives/2004/06/by_daniel_drumm.html

But even if WMD was the 'only' reason to conquer the evil Iraqi Dictator (as if), Bush would be no more at fault than John Heinz-Kerry. Heinz-Kerry even admitted that if he knew then what he knows now, he still would have opted to authorize force. In fact, many Dem and GOP members of Congress and U.S. politicians in general truly believed, after evaluating the evidence, that Saddam had weapons. There may still be weapons yet been found.

Finally, you talk about soft money and flip-flops. Hypocrisy!! The Dems are the kings of soft money! And they nominated the biggest toe-thong style flip-flop hypocrites of all time. Liberal groups have funded many more soft money attack ads. President Bush has spoken out against all soft money groups, but the Dems only opened their holes when the ads stopped benefiting them. If you want to argue flip-flops "bring-it-on", you'll lose. Unlike Kerry, Bush doesn't claim to be a Pro-Abortion Christian, if there can even be such a thing.

Either way, the courageous leadership of George W. Bush helped to guide our nation through the worst tragedy in U.S. history. All things considered, President George W. Bush has done an excellent job. He is a moral and resolute leader, and as such, will be re-elected. I don't believe that Americans will be dense enough to elect anyone else.

 

Again Bush04 like many Neo-cons like yoruself, you assume too much. If you are going to argue point by point, at least stick to a point and not make up things as you go.

Cyrus
Although I respect Ollie for his service to his country, he is a common felon. He can sugar coat it all he wants, he broke the law plain and simple and should have been jailed. The fact that his felony conviction was set aside on a technicality does not negate his violation of the law and violate the honor of the Marine uniform.



Anyway - enough rants for the evening. I got another A on a Marketing/Econ paper.

Has anyone noticed that a high GPA doesn't seem to make as much difference if you have over 20 years of experience in a given profession? Sort of a let down but I will still grind ahead.

Hey - JAG is on. Do you think Bellasario is a Republican? (lol). The only reason I watch is for Catherine Bell. Funny, I never saw a female Marine who was that hot! (and I never have seen a JAG officer that was as good on their feet as DJ Elliot (isn't TV amazing - lol)

Cheers...(and peace)

 

So do you also think Kerry should denounce Moveon.org and Michael Moore? Or is this just a one way rant as usual?

BLD

 

Yes. But to only do it one way will show weakness. You cannot show weakness to the Repubicans (see Dukakis). You have to hit back and hit back hard and hit back frequently.

Of course both Kerry and Bush are egging their respective sides on. To deny it is to deny reality. Both John and George are seasoned politicians who know the score and both know the dirty tricks games. In fact, Reagan, Clinton, Kerry, and both Bush's were masters of the dirty trick.

Isn't politics fun?