« Confronting the nightmare: terrorism in New Orleans | Main | Study Shows Climate Change on Mars. Which Republican is to blame? »

Time to crap or get off the pot, Senator Kerry

Beldar notes that it's getting very, very close to the deadline for John Kerry to file a libel lawsuit against the people behind the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth for their book, "Unfit To Serve." After all, since a lot of people attribute at least part of the blame for Kerry's loss on their efforts, and Kerry and others say that their charges are "false" and "disproven," wouldn't it behoove the Senator to get it on the record that they lied to him? Hell, he could even cite his loss to Bush under damages.

I have to disagree with Beldar, though, about saying that Kerry is just letting this slip by, hoping it quietly fades away. After, Kerry's home state of Massachusetts has a three-year statute of limitations, giving him until 2007 to file his lawsuit. And judging by his own ongoing reluctance to release his full military service records, despite repeated promises to do so (including one on the air to Tim Russert several months ago), I think it's safe to say that among all his other flaws, Kerry is a world-class procrastinator.

Pity, though. Kerry was at least good for entertainment. And it'd be a refreshing change to have him actually have to "put up or shut up," instead of simply repeating over and over that something was "false" without ever actually having to show otherwise.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Time to crap or get off the pot, Senator Kerry:

» Reaganites Unite! linked with Condi in '08? Not at this rate!

» Cadillac Tight linked with Yesterday’s brouhaha

Comments (47)

Kerry will neither crap nor... (Below threshold)
PTG:

Kerry will neither crap nor get off the pot. He knows what a lawsuit would do for him. I think the man has great faith in the ignorance and irrationality of his supporters. He will more likely say he could have sued and won, but...

If I was a betting person, ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

If I was a betting person, I'd place a substantial wager on the point that Kerry was dishonorably discharged and was able to serve in public office afterward only because Carter pardoned him.

A Presidential pardon isn't doled out for no reason, for obscure issues, and we do know that Carter granted one to Kerry. All things considered, if Kerry brings suit against the Swift Vets, it would then require him coming clean or at least contending/countering their assertions and because Kerry hasn't, it's nearly assumable at this point that he can't, and not due to financial or other resource limitations, either.

What is the actual shame about this entire series of events, however, to my view is that so many among those who even listen to the guy (much less work with him in the Senate and elsewhere) don't hold him to task as at least someone with a history of bad (or even questionable) character.

He was reported to have sat, eating a meal, with his back turned to President Bush's televised speech about Katrina in the restaurant. With each and every one of these instances of Kerry's intenesely crude and rude behaviors, Kerry proves he's not a guy with any taste.

Looks like PTG has also not... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Looks like PTG has also noticed the method by which Kerry persists: relying on dumb loyalists, and at this point, I include some in our Senate who even commisserate with Kerry about anything other than cheese.

...and whatever happened to... (Below threshold)
LJD:

...and whatever happened to those elusive military records anyhow?

I'm still waiting for Russe... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

I'm still waiting for Russert to hold Kerry accountable. Kerry flat out lied to Russert on Meet The Press when he (yet again) promised to release all his records. Russert won't call him out on it. (When was that interview, btw?)

Tim Russert, you are a p*ssy.

Truth is an absolute defens... (Below threshold)

Truth is an absolute defense to libel.

Statute of limitations is THREE YEARS.

He doesn't want this hanging around in the press for another three years.

Actually the title was "Unf... (Below threshold)

Actually the title was "Unfit for Command."

To -S-You p... (Below threshold)
jim:

To -S-


You posted:

"A Presidential pardon isn't doled out for no reason, for obscure issues, and we do know that Carter granted one to Kerry."

I knew that had been suggested to be the case by many, but I am unaware that we "know" it. Did I miss this?


To LJD and Les Nessman:

On those military records, I must have missed that also. Weren't they released, leaving folk to wonder why he had not done so earlier? Do we know something remains missing?

I'm not being snarky; I just have this sudden feeling like I've been in a cave somewhere, a la Rip Van W!

Jim, I think that the recor... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Jim, I think that the records were "released" to a couple of friendly journalists (LA Times, I think, not sure) after being reviewed (for accuracy ?) by Kerry. Since then I have heard nothing else. The story seems to have just died - big surprise. To my knowledge the complete, un-redacted, records have never been released for public inspection.

Hey Jim,Can you poin... (Below threshold)
BurbankErnie:

Hey Jim,
Can you point me to a link so I can see Kerry's Military Records?
No?
Um, I am not being snarky, I would just like to see with my own two eyes Kerry's Records, since you say he released them all.
Link Please?
Jim?

Thanx, Mike.And, t... (Below threshold)
jim:

Thanx, Mike.

And, to BurbankErnie, yes you were. I'd like to see them myself and was myself hoping to have that link posted.

And this is that same lowli... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

And this is that same lowlife reptile who tried to fool gun owners and hunters by running around using blaze orange as camaflage who is this jackass trying to fool is like gore just upset becuase he lost the election? why dont that kerry idiot get a like and flush it down the john

jim, I was being a tad thea... (Below threshold)
-S-:

jim, I was being a tad theatrical. As in, I only know and can substantiate what I read, as you, also, and most reasonable people. -I- am an individual, "we" is the effort of knowledge genarlly accepted to be correct about this issue of a Presidential Pardon by Carter for Kerry (for the then assumed dishonorable discharge, because, otherwise, if Kerry had a dishonorable discharge -- why else would he feel reservations to the extent that he has and still does about his military records if they did NOT contain such because otherwise, I can't imagine what else would cause him to sweat this issue to the extent that he has -- then a Presidential Pardon by then-President Carter would be the only way that Kerry would have/could have been able to be sworn into office in the Senate.

At least, that's how I understand these issues, although possessing a layperson's understanding of these issues, with the exception of a reasonably sophisticated sense of intuition and a good amount of common sense.

I'm just saying that the (in the corporate sense) "we" "know" certain issues by deduction, just as what's also been said about motivations of Kerry for not bring libel suit against the Swiftvets. He wants the issue to go away and probably assumed that they wouldn't be believable enough to compensate for his "I'm a Senator married to a billionaire" level of influence over the opinions of others.

He's been wrong about everything so far. I can't see his record improving unless and until the guy comes clean, shows his stuff as to character and hones up to his failings but I also doubt VERY STRONGLY that he can or will ever do that because he's not a well man, psychologically. "Crawling on (his) belly along the ground" to "hunt deer" and such is enough to prove the guy a boob about hunting and meeting with the enemy in Paris while still enlisted in U.S. military is the basis for dishonorable (read, "TRAITOR") status, for starters.

Either he murdered someone and was held accountable for it while enlisted or he was otherwise dishonorably discharged for his traitorous, nonsense behavior because there aren't many other reasons anyone would go to the extent that John Kerry has to conceal his past. And, there's only one way he could be in the Senate while concealing that past under conjectured terms, reasons why, and that'd be by Presidential Pardon.

My thoughts, is all, room to correct inaccurate assumptions.

Mike is correct in that Ker... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Mike is correct in that Kerry has released and only released a version of a military record after it was first "reviewed" by Kerry and staff and almost certainly edited...

Meaning, the military has not released (and can't without Kerry's agreement) the full set of Kerry's military record without it first being in the hands of Kerry (for months if not years) for review and tweaking.

Kerry's last -- that I heard about -- was that he'd signed his Form (to allow release of his records) but he then went on to say that he and his staff were still reviewing the records before releasing them...

which means he simply obtained a copy of his military records and is reviewing those but that he did not, in fact, sign the ultimate release form that would enable the records to be released to the public without first being scoured over (and a copy edited) by Kerry.

Let's see...his last statement to WhoseIts on Meet the Press was that "(he'd) get it done" as to signing the form to allow the military to release the records, and that he and his staff were still "looking it over" and things of that nature.

Then they released the edited copy that had been "looked over" by Kerry to the public but it's not the official record. It just means Kerry has dawdled and elaborated the record process to such a point of obfuscation that Kerry won't admit what's been released is not the offical record. His hubris and excuses seem to know no boundaries.

People like that...they're maintained by others around them who allow them to remain covertly situated in a certain fantasy existence and Kerry is one of those persons, who seems to have been carried along his entire life (I can't explain why, because he has as much personal appeal as an eel in my view) by a social group that maintains his delusions. Like anyone with enablers, is my point, he's been able to maintain a high degree of falsehood about his person and not been socially denigrated for it. What usually happens with people like that is that they're exposed several generations in the future and their legacy revealed to be subzero but I don't have hopes that Kerry will ever see the light of justice in his lifetime. He's just got too many favors out that he seems to continually collect upon.

I'd trust the eel before I'd ever trust him. No way would you ever find me in a boat with the guy.

The Boston Globe has in its... (Below threshold)
George:

The Boston Globe has in its possession what it claims are
Kerry’s "full military and medical records." When asked to
make these records available to the public, Globe Managing
Editor Mary Jane Wilkinson replied, "It is my understanding
that Kerry will release these papers to anyone else now
that he has signed the Form 180. The Boston Globe is
not going to make available the papers we have received."

If The Globe or any major newspaper had even half a page of
a document on President Bush’s National Guard service, its
staff would dissect that scrap in a dozen different ways,
publish it big, and conjecture endlessly about its sinister implications.

The Globe gets an exclusive story on one of the
big secrets of the 2004 presidential campaign, and
The Globe covers it up. It is shameful liberal
bias. This is the Democratic Party press of
America. It hunts down the news – even makes it up –
on Republicans. It censors potentially
unflattering news on Democrats.


What I find most revealing ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

What I find most revealing about the Kerry character flaws (which I regard as substantial, although I can't speak for others and am not trying to), is that MOST human beings can easily dismiss the guy based upon revealing (and very revealing) daily details, like the camouflage gaff, the hat, the inane "hunting" methods while accrediting himself as a hunter, his flicking tongue, his avoidance of specifics about these records, the confusing stories about military service, the contradiction of his stories about service by many who were also present and observed him, his mustard thing, the makeup, the facelift, the cheapness where tabs and expenses are concerned...it all adds up to a person that MOST people would not want to spend time around.

People find him uneasy and unreliable due to each and every bastardized colloquialism with which he references himself, and added up, they spell "liar."

Look at it this way: in "Tombstone" (the story/film adapted), Kerry would be Ringo and Bush would be Wyatt Earp. I still think Doc Holliday is best left to the territory of Val Kilmer, however, as to casting.

George: that's nonsense be... (Below threshold)
-S-:

George: that's nonsense because IF Kerry HAD signed "Form 180," then the public could obtain copies of the military record without having to go through the Boston Globe or gain Kerry's permission or anything of that sort.

And, IF there was nothing in those (the full, unedited) military records, why would Kerry ("and staff") even NEED to "look it all over" and do so for years? I mean, sign the Form, deliver it with receipt obtained to the right department, let it fly afterward.

Kerry's no more made his full military record available than he has signed Form 180. IF he's signed Form 180, let's see a copy of it, because it'd also be in the full military record that us public could obtain by request.

The Boston Globe has no special, exclusive relationship with and about military records for anyone. They're considered a part of the public, just like the rest of us. Whatever they have, they undoubtedly obtained as EDITED VERSION DEEMED TO BE "FULL" record by Kerry, from Kerry's office. After his many years' long "review" of the contents.

Why would anyone review any record? And not make it publicly available without all that review? Because there's reason to believe that there is sensitive, or even damaging, information contained. And the years spent by Kerry "reviewing" the record copy that HE obtained on his own behalf prior to signing Form 180 were necessary, in my view, to manage by whatever process possible to rewrite and edit whatever was possible to be so...

Arriving later at an edited version, that very special isolated copy, that is in the said possession of the Boston Globe. This is more of the reason why people don't repect John Kerry or the Globe for the most part, either.

Kerry's military records mu... (Below threshold)
Jim:

Kerry's military records must be kept in the same vault as Bush's records from his days in the National Guard. What a friggen coward we have for a CIC!

His flicking tongue? Kerry'... (Below threshold)
PTG:

His flicking tongue? Kerry's flicking tongue, says -S-. The horror. The horror.

Jim, do you really think se... (Below threshold)
Sarah:

Jim, do you really think serving in the Air National Guard is cowardly?

To -S-I appreciate... (Below threshold)
jim:

To -S-

I appreciate your clarification.

Still, as much as I hate to say this, "we" do not "know" that Kerry had a Dishonorable Discharge. However, we DO "know" that he did certain specific things that might have been used to justify a DD. Those things are in public domain, but it appears the DD proof is not.

There is danger in proclaiming that he had a DD. It might turn out that he evaded it and that it was a simple bureaucratic screw up and oversight. Knowing the federal gov't as "we" do, should "we" be so quick to rule that out? Not I! The danger comes that he might be able to prove it wrong and use it, thereby shifting the debate away from his objectionable deeds and over to those inaccurately claiming he had a DD.

I strongly advise keeping the focus on what he did, that a DD was a likely/plausible consequence, that his HD date would be consistent with the pardon, and demand proof one way or another.

As to his Form 180, it seems that he has and has not released his records. A nuanced approach, yes?

(I'm the all lower case "jim" with no web url)

Kerry will wait until the l... (Below threshold)
Doug:

Kerry will wait until the last moment to deal with the slander charges so he will get free publicity for the election. It will make great headlines.

Lets be frank, Kerry fought and served in Vietnam, while Bush kept his tail stateside with the Guard. As someone whose been irradiated, blown up, shot up and buried my comrades in arms, I find it ridiculous that peeps want Bush.

Sorry but that god damn coward never broke a sweat for the US let alone shed any blood. People griping about Kerry being a mailman on the river, forget one thing:

Anyone serving in a warzone, going outside the barrier putting their life on the line, even if it is to deliver paper clips have done one thing:
Served their country in a war zone.

Bush can't say that.

Sorry, but I'd rather have a guy griping about Vietnam and protesting it in OFFICE, than a coward who bucked his GUARD SERVICE and got Daddy to keep him home.

Not sure if you missed this... (Below threshold)
John:

Not sure if you missed this is Beldar's post, or if it has been mentioned in the comments above me, but the statute of limitation issues arise in the likely venues where Kerry would be able to bring suit.

DougBush wanted to... (Below threshold)
jim:

Doug

Bush wanted to be a pilot, like his father before him. He saw a path to that goal and he loved to fly. His plane model ended up phasing out and the few such slots that went to Nam went only to pilots that had even more hours than he had.

If you want to disparage someone for not climbing out of a fighter jet cockpit to become a foot soldier, that's your privilege. I sure won't.

A kid I know just turned in his AFROTC scholarship and had to leave the university. Why? Because he was told he was probably not going to be chosen to be a fighter pilot. His position was that being a fighter jet pilot was what had been driving him since he was in pre-school. He'd been in youth civil air patrol, he'd already gotten his solo license at his own expense, and had put in tons of hours prepping for piloting.

So, he said to heck with it, chucked his scholarship, dropped out, and is off right now trying to re-invent himself.

So, folk who find a way to persevere through all that and more and make it into fighter jets are generally driven individuals, who single-mindedly focus on that one goal. Then, when their time is clearly coming to an end, have to step away and re-invent themselves, much like an NFL player forced to retire.

The TNG had empty billets for active pilots, per their CO, during that period (and no MSM has disagreed) and did not fill them all. So, the rest of that stuff seems inaccurate screed to me.

Actually, Kerry protested it not in office but in front of the US Senate (Xmas in Cambodia, "seared"), at meetings that planned assassination of US Senators, and in discussions with the NV in Paris.

Even if Bush's reaso... (Below threshold)
jc:


Even if Bush's reasons for going into the TANG were less than honorable it's obvious that Bush has changed and become a better man over the years and Kerry hasn't. Kerry is a self-aggrandizing jackass who does everything he does and says everything he says to fit some JFK mold, and he always will be. The same goes for Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, etc.

Hillary is more cold and calculating, like Alpha from the 1953 movie Cat Women of the Moon, but not as hot.

Oh, and Howard Dean ... (Below threshold)
jc:


Oh, and Howard Dean doesn't play to the camera like the rest, either. Deep down, he just really is a jackass.

Doug - since you find it ri... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Doug - since you find it ridiculous that the "peeps" voted for Bush over Kerry, I will give you the reason I voted for Bush just based on the military service thing, forget politics. First and foremost Kerry IS a traitor, whether convicted or not. As a commissioned naval officer he collaborated with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong in Paris. Protesting at home is one thing, collaborating is treason. He may have served in Viet Nam, but he shamed himself and all of the rest of us who were also there when he did that. Benedict
Arnold was a respected military officer before he became a traitor. Attacking Bush for serving in the Texas ANG is total bullshit. Someone that flew F102's might have been a little crazy, but he damn sure wasn't a coward.

Jim, I agree that there is something strange about Kerry's discharge. For one thing the dates don't add up. As an officer in the USNR at that time he should have had a 6 year commitment, 3 active, 3 reserve. He went on active duty in 1967 so he should have been out by 1973. When he had his discharge up on the website the date was 1978 or 1979, after Carter did his amnesty for cowards thing. I am one of those who belive that somewhere prior to that there is another discharge and it is less than honorable. If his record is as clean as he wants everyone to believe, why does he not make it public?

The Globe's big story (afte... (Below threshold)

The Globe's big story (after they received the "documents") was that W's grade point average was slightly higher than Lurch's.

I was in Nam the same time ... (Below threshold)
rs:

I was in Nam the same time as Kerry. That does not give me moral authority, though.

The one thing that bothers me most (and there are a whole bunch of em) is Kerry standing up on the Senate Floor, as a sitting US Senator, and lying in an attempt to influence US Foreign Policy.

How can anybody that supported Kerry forgive that kind of behavior? It scares the shit out of me that someone so character deficient as Kerry actually got to a national election for President. I can actually believe in the Manchurian Candidate now.

It scares the shit out o... (Below threshold)

It scares the shit out of me that someone so character deficient as Kerry actually got to a national election for President.

That doesn't scare me nearly as much 48.27% of voters either being stupid enough to not understand or willing to accept the blatant dishonesty of Kerry. That's what scares me.

jim, think it through, logi... (Below threshold)
-S-:

jim, think it through, logically. What else could it be, is the glaring issue here. Just think it through to possible conclusions and discard the less possible and you'll end up with the same conclusion that "we" have arrived at over time and already.

About the "flicking tongue," would YOU hire someone who sat in front of you in an interview or over a dinner and picked their nose? Flicked their tongue? Scratched body parts otherwise better assigned to private moments otherwise?

It's a figure of speech, by the way. I happen to find his flicking tongue in public a very disgusting lack of consideration for others, or else he's taking a medication that makes his tongue unruly (it's actually a complication of some medications that causes "the tongue to behave like a worm" and/or "to behave worm-like" as induced by a medication/type of medications and that's straight from a physician's reference).

But and however, it's not the end all of all things, no, not nearly, but like I wrote earlier, a combination of human characteristics that leads many of the rest of us to a great big, final "iiiccck" response.

And, jim, yes, the nuanced ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

And, jim, yes, the nuanced "I was before I wasn't" as in "flip flop" performance by Kerry...what with him continually tweaking the tolerance of many, is again what I was trying to describe earlier. A big package of a combination of nonsense and contradictions and just enough oogieness to be uncomfortable and results in someone not a lot of people would ever choose to be with, or otherwise. If a choice (a vote represents that), some of us go with someone we can reduce to the simplicity of "I'd like to have a beer with him/her" than someone about whom you have to work extra hard to even understand whattheheck they have signed, have not signed, did, didnotdo, would do, won't do, can't decide, would decide just after they decide not to, lipstick, makeup, pen-no-pen, rules-no-rules, cheat-no-cheat, Cambodia-notCambodia...etc.

So, simplify all that and say it's the flicking tongue, a repulsive gesture in public speech and the option to have a beer instead with a friendly and funny guy who isn't going to leave you with the bill unless you work it out ahead of time, and, well, you get the simple refinery of how most of us humans determine who we like and who we don't trust.

It's like the guy coming home and moving out after a marriage of twenty years. He can't say what it was all that time but he sure knows he can't stand to see burned hotdogs on the table.fer.supper.one.more.time. You just make a decision based upon the total experience and oftentimes sum it all up in simpler terms, like it's the flicking tongue that's too disgusting to tolerate anymore. Things like that. Doesn't mean that's the actual thing, or even the important thing, just that it's the last/final thing.

I said nothing about flicki... (Below threshold)
jim(all lower case):

I said nothing about flicking tongue. Not gonna' go there.

As for my offering an alternate explanation for the HD date, I did that. The DD might be the real answer, but it is a mistake (IMHO) to shout out that as a fact when it is definitely not a proven fact. Focus instead, I suggest, on the deeds that could well have made that the reason. Otherwise, there is a risk that it is a trap and, in the meanwhile, representing such unproven assertions (which can be shown clearly to liberals and undecideds as not yet proven) as "facts" weakens every other thing that gets said.

It is not important what I feel or guess-timate what the relative probabilities are for the two competing explanations, or if there is a third, etc. Keeping up the pressure for full release is good in any event.

Jesus, haven't any of you i... (Below threshold)
Chris:

Jesus, haven't any of you idiots ever heard of Google? In less time than it took me to read the inane blathering of -S-, I found the Globe article about Kerry's records. I try to be civil in my comments, but a lot of you are either liars or quite ignorant. Here's a link to the article
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/kerry_allows_navy_release_of_military_medical_records/

And here's the first two grafs, for those of you who refuse to read the MSM and choose to listen to the ravings of -S- instead.

"Senator John F. Kerry, ending at least two years of refusal, has waived privacy restrictions and authorized the release of his full military and medical records.

The records, which the Navy Personnel Command provided to the Globe, are mostly a duplication of what Kerry released during his 2004 campaign for president, including numerous commendations from commanding officers who later criticized Kerry's Vietnam service."

Note this phrase - "which the Navy Personnel Command provided to the Globe,"

They weren't secretly released to the Globe, Kerry didn't edit them and give them to the Globe, he authorized the military to release them. All the rest you pulled out of your collective asses.

And speaking of pulling things out of your ass, I have to say -S- is the champ. Your posts are all the same. "I have this crazy, ridiculous fact that I ahve no proof for, but that my intuition tells me is true. And any thinking person will agree with me. I am now going to ramble on for six or seven incoherent, ungrammatical paragraphs about the serious implications of my fantasy as if it were real." You just blithely toss out the fact that Carter pardoned Kerry after his dishonorable discharge, and you're only evidence is "what else could have happened?" Unbelievable.

Hey, Kerry wasn't the perfect candidate, but what motivation would he possibly have to sue the Swifties? While we're at it, who has Bush sued for all of the AWOL accusations? If politicians went around suing everyone who lied about them, that's all they'd do.

And by the way, there is substantial evidence that Bush never reported for duty in Alabama. I have yet to read a credible story that he did. Is it rally an excuse that they stopped using his plane, and he just had it in his genes so much to be a pilot that he just couldn't go on? "Gee, I joined the Army to kill people, but they made me a quartermaster, so I guess I'll just go home. I'm sure no one will mind." When you join the military, you do and go where they tell you (unless your father's an influential Republican bigwig.) It doesn't matter how diappointing things are for you. You don't have a say in the matter. It's called a commitment, something Bush has shown himslef to be incapable of his entire life.

Bush has gotten by thanks to a series of enablers his whole life, and you guys are a perfect reflection of that mentality.

I also just noticed this bi... (Below threshold)
Chris:

I also just noticed this bit of brilliance from -S-:describing Bush as a "friendly and funny guy who isn't going to leave you with the bill." My God, that's exactly what he's doing. Even the conservatives can see that.

And by the way, there is... (Below threshold)

And by the way, there is substantial evidence that Bush never reported for duty in Alabama.

You must've gotten the same fax Dan Rather did.

jim, about that issue, I kn... (Below threshold)
-S-:

jim, about that issue, I know you didn't say anything about it but I avoided scrolling to read the other I.D., this thread ("PTG", so o.k., I just now did) and wanted to get into the other issues that you'd raised. So I wrote everything in comments, didn't delineate. Most people read along...at least, I do.

This isn't a forum format s... (Below threshold)
-S-:

This isn't a forum format such that you/anyone has to respond to any one specific earlier to share opinions, jim. I wasn't writing ALL that I wrote earlier to, specifically, YOU, but just writing. You can read what I wrote, so can anyone else, as in, the comments are not personal in nature, nor privately targeted to or about you, just comments about the thread itself.

So, O.K., Chris, I see that... (Below threshold)
-S-:

So, O.K., Chris, I see that your glass is half-full, too. I *got* from you way earlier that you're a Bush naysayer, and about having a glass of beer with Bush versus Kerry, Kerry is well known to leave people at restaurants and such stuck with the bill. Bush isn't.

I was talking about specifically drinking a glass of beer, or not, with each of those, or not. Not about billions of dollars and prescription drug bills and things of those scope. You may recall the Bush assumed office with a national debt in place, one that he had nothing to do with creating. I think it's accurate to state that every President since before Roosevelt has left indebtedness for future generations but it's more a case of Congress creating the debt, if you examine the nature of how the indebtedness is created. A President doesn't make or break the a budget in a term.

It's specious, however, in my view to try to pin increased national indebtedness as being Bush's "fault" or intention or even reckless abandon for future generations because the nature of the indebtedness (most of it, to my knowledge) has been necessary to contend with unexpected tragedies/disasters. If you want to blame anyone for indebtedness of the last few years, blame Al Qaeda. They had the opportunity to chose their actions and look what the decision was.

If anyone's responsible in that sense of cause and affect for our current expenses, terrorism is, Saddam Hussein, UBL, for starters.

Just imagine how huge our indebtedness would be right about now with Krazy Kerry and Krazy Kennedy and Hillary the Hun spinning that wheel o' taxpayer fortune for all these years, building all that paperwork...we wouldn't have national healthcare but we'd be being asked to continue to fund it, I am certain.

And probably still have Saddam Hussein siphoning the billions from a palace. Learn to look at what has occured that is good and not what isn't.

I don't agree with the Bush and Congress spending spree but on the other hand, I can understand the necessity for most of it, at least by Bush at his request, with only a few exceptions. The Transportation Bill, on the other hand...

So, O.K., Chris, I see that... (Below threshold)
-S-:

So, O.K., Chris, I see that your glass is half-full, too. I *got* from you way earlier that you're a Bush naysayer, and about having a glass of beer with Bush versus Kerry, Kerry is well known to leave people at restaurants and such stuck with the bill. Bush isn't.

I was talking about specifically drinking a glass of beer, or not, with each of those, or not. Not about billions of dollars and prescription drug bills and things of those scope. You may recall the Bush assumed office with a national debt in place, one that he had nothing to do with creating. I think it's accurate to state that every President since before Roosevelt has left indebtedness for future generations but it's more a case of Congress creating the debt, if you examine the nature of how the indebtedness is created. A President doesn't make or break the a budget in a term.

It's specious, however, in my view to try to pin increased national indebtedness as being Bush's "fault" or intention or even reckless abandon for future generations because the nature of the indebtedness (most of it, to my knowledge) has been necessary to contend with unexpected tragedies/disasters. If you want to blame anyone for indebtedness of the last few years, blame Al Qaeda. They had the opportunity to chose their actions and look what the decision was.

If anyone's responsible in that sense of cause and affect for our current expenses, terrorism is, Saddam Hussein, UBL, for starters.

Just imagine how huge our indebtedness would be right about now with Krazy Kerry and Krazy Kennedy and Hillary the Hun spinning that wheel o' taxpayer fortune for all these years, building all that paperwork...we wouldn't have national healthcare but we'd be being asked to continue to fund it, I am certain.

And probably still have Saddam Hussein siphoning the billions from a palace. Learn to look at what has occured that is good and not what isn't.

I don't agree with the Bush and Congress spending spree but on the other hand, I can understand the necessity for most of it, at least by Bush at his request, with only a few exceptions. The Transportation Bill, on the other hand...

And, I AM one of those "conservatives" you refer to. I never suggested I could not "see" increased spending of late, I suggested that Bush as an individual is not known to stiff someone on an interpersonal basis for a beverage. Kerry is.

RE: Chris's post (September... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Chris's post (September 21, 2005 10:39 PM)

See KERRY'S 180: THE SPIN CONTINUES? [Michelle Malkin - June 07, 2005 08:30 AM] for a few links as to why some still question the document dump.

Without knowing more particulars about procedure, privacy, and legal restrictions whether self-imposed by Kerry, The Globe, anyone, or everyone, I'm inclined to agree with Hugh Hewitt's conclusion:

As for the Globe, why in the world doesn't the paper post the documents on the web site for all to see and read? Answer: A bastion of MSM is playing guardian of the news again, interpreting the docs for the public too limited to understand.

I've not read any follow-up by The Globe that they have posted documents for transparent review. That remains a problem. Might The Globe serve as water carrier for one of their favorite sons? Might the media, and in this particular case, an arm of the NY Times, have a teensy bit of bias? Is there any reason for John Q. Public to be suspicious? Does the sun rise from the east?


Hey, Kerry wasn't the perfect candidate, but what motivation would he possibly have to sue the Swifties? While we're at it, who has Bush sued for all of the AWOL accusations? If politicians went around suing everyone who lied about them, that's all they'd do.

His motivation to sue would be to clear his name on a particularly contentious series of issues revolving around his Vietnam era experience. Don't be coy and act like you aren't aware of such a possibility. Since the Swift Boat Veterans were regarded as one of the single (if not the) most damaging groups to the Kerry campaign, I'd figure they'd be a pretty good group to attack if one has truth and documentation on one's side. Can a candidate go around and sue "everyone"? Of course not. But it sure seems like a pretty reasonable group to go after considering their impact, the lingering fog, and Kerry's desire to remain viable.

Chris, I guess I am among t... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Chris, I guess I am among those who are either liars or just ignorant that I do not take as absolute gospel everything that appears in the Boston Globe. However, since you like Google, maybe you should dig a few pages deeper and you might have found this article from the Chicago Sun-Times -

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lip09.html

So I guess the question is - if he has such a stellar record why hasn't Kerry released ALL of his records to ANYONE requesting to see them? Or has something happened in the last couple of months that I have missed? You might want to try Google on that, I don't have time today what with working and all that inconvenient stuff. In any event, John Kerry is still a traitor.

Were did kerry-lerch come f... (Below threshold)
moseby:

Were did kerry-lerch come from? BLECCH!! Why is he poluting my TV screen?

Somewhere...under a rock....there are millipedes, earwigs, and crickets running amok because the top predator has left to give a speech at brown u.

You want to talk about trai... (Below threshold)
Doug:

You want to talk about traitor, look at Bush, he's the most ignorant fool to date on warfare, he makes Carter look Reagan.

Gen Shinseki told Bush, that we needed 300,000+ troops to subdue Iraq. We got less than half of that. Oh, he sacked Shinseki shortly after. I did EOD work over there, I dealt with ammo dumps. They have fricken Hagi's guarding them, ok. Do you realize how F'n stupid that is? Do any of you understand the scope of stupidity that is Iraq? All due to extreme poor planning and handling.

How on Gods blue earth is Rumsfeld still in office? After Abu Ghadab got out? You look at video footage you can tell Bush didn't know it was going on, look at the anger on his face. And yet, his buddy Rumsfeld, who realistically did know it was going on is in office. I have no problems whatsoever with any interrogation technique we use and any other country, I do have issues when those means are leaked, and escape goats are made for it, hihi lower enlisted and not field grades who were in charge of it.

And sorry, I frankly feel Bush used family ties to avoid any form of service in Vietnam. People can make excuses on him being a fly boy, they can ignore family ties and influence as a possible reason. What it comes down to is, Bush never once in his life bled for his country on the field of war. I've buried a better man than he ever will be thanks to poor planning and handling of security in Iraq.

You guys can clamour on about how great Bush is, and how bad Kerry is. It comes down to Bush never bled, Kerry did. Deal with it.

I agree with doug: Bush is... (Below threshold)
moseby:

I agree with doug: Bush is great, kerry is bad. We ALL should deal with it.

You are right, Bush is grea... (Below threshold)
Doug:

You are right, Bush is great at not bleeding for his country. He's absolutely OUTSTANDING at avoiding any personal harm.

He should get the White Feather with oak cluster for avoiding gunfire.

Doug, like I said - Kerry i... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Doug, like I said - Kerry is still a traitor. His actions directly contributed to many of the names on the wall in Washington.
I never said that Bush is great nor that I agree with everything Bush has done, however, he was by far the better of the 2 choices for president - both times. I have a lot of problems with his domestic agenda. It would suit me a lot better if he were a real conservative, but still he is better than Kerry would have been. Since it isn't the original topic of this thread I don't see much point in discussing with you of the handling of the Iraq war. I will say that are always screws ups, etc. in war and the military men pay the price. It has happened in every war, but actually less in Iraq. If you want to see a real cluster fuck, read up on Viet Nam. And that still could have been won. I have not been to Iraq like you. Viet Nam was my war, and just about the time John Kerry was there. I still remember watching him perform before Congress and feeling disgust and being pissed at his lies. Anyway, Bush has made mistakes, all presidents do, but he is not a traitor - John Kerry is. Now have at it, rant away, I really don't care.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy