Bush Republicans: Tough on terrorism, tough on war heroes

I'll come back to this (per my post above). Thank you, Jeremy, for the thoughtful post. I do draw a distinction between grieving a police officer, fighting a known evil, and a son, sent, in my view, to his needless, wasteful death. The nature and degree of my anger, I know, would be very different.

(By the way - my question, "have you ever given birth?" was not to you, but to Naples, as it was his comment asking her to shut her "annoying" mouth).

Edited to add:

So am I, Jeremy, which is why I'm wondering why we've devoted this much money and blood to Iraq, a zero-sum game drawing down resources slated for our good buddy Osama.

 

I gotta say LOL at naples posts

 

Why lol?


Also, the only thing Bush failed at is Iraq, but other than that, he has done a perfect job. Oh, except the stem cell veto deal, I disagree with him about the stem cell thing, but whatever. I also think the big duopoly of cable ISP's should be broken up.

You guys know whats going on with that? How many BILLIONS of dollars they were paid? The entire country was supposed to be on fiber optics by November I think, yet I'm still fighting with my cheesy ass 3.0Mb DSL connection. =|

 

You totally miss the point. Bush and his cronies have a long history of smearing people with war records(and otherwise) for poltical gain. Yet, if you use your right as an american to be critical of the administration's views, they attempt to paint you as unpatriotic and in league with terrorists. The Bush administration's tactics are nothing if not Orwellian.

BTW, I will post more case studies as time permits.

 

Thank you.

 

Anyone who stands up against bush will always be dismissed with some generalised sweeping statement by the supporters of bush.

Bush is an embarrassment, he has damaged the image of the United States and continues to manipulate voters with his carefully chosen words.

He will say Iraq is going ahead fine until it becomes too obvious that he is lying so he changes his stance.

He will say the economy is doing great until it becomes obvious that things aren't as good as he says.

Nov 7th - Make Your Vote Count

 

We all know this cant be entirely accurate. There were probably infinite amount of "riders" on these bills.

 

Good thing it wasnt anything important

 

So you are saying this is a "case study"?

 

In this thread I will only address substance. You could always choose to address the actual issue if you want. If you would like, prove that Bush republicans did not smear a war hero and his entire family to further their political agenda.


PS. If your Grandpa had ever campaigned against GW Bush he would now be a nazi war crminial.

 

"Once again, why is he a hero of some on the left?"

He's a hero to Americans. Remember when we were Americans? Before the polarizing tactics of Rove/Bush spread through politics like a virus.

 

No one got smeared... Their own records were never really brought to light, were they? Bush revealed and released all his military service records. To thid day Kerry has not. What exactly is it he has to hide? Without seeing those records, it's really hard to "address substance" where there is none.

He wouldn't though. He was not a traitor.

 

You want to talk about Kerry and not the issue raised in this thread? If you want to talk about Kerry dig up one of the other 25 threads about it.

So, are you calling McCain a traitor? Do you think he's a "manchurian candidate" that was brain washed by communists and came back to do their bidding in our government, the way that a Bush 2000 and 2004 supporter believes:

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/campaign2k/campaign2.htm

 

Well that goes to the root of the issue/people you are contending where "smeared".

I think, that McCain has some issues most of which are likely the result of his experiences as a POW.

 

You beat me to it. A voting record means nothing without seeing the entirety of the bills voted on.

 

I love McCain

I think, for the best for our nation both short and long term.. a McCain/Leiberman ticket would be best.

*Prepares to be flamed by Libs and Pubs *

 

That's ground that I'm sure has been covered in this forum time and time and time again. Why go over the same stuff?

For example, the linking of a vietnam vet -- who lost an arm and both legs in vietnam -- to Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in a political ad, in order to show he was soft on national security.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2002-11-06-chambliss_x.htm

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/bivens_outrage?pid=1262

The republican who won reportedly stayed home from vietnam with a bad knee.

Why don't you just come out and say Bush's tactics against McCain were OK?
You are not Ted Sampley, are you?

http://www.miafacts.org/prankster.htm

 

I'll go with you on the Leiberman side, but not McCain. I'd vote for Leiberman on just about any ticket he ran for.

 

You brought it up.

Do you want me to cry for you?

There will always be people who are bitter about their circumstances. If they would simply do something positive with their lives instead of spreading negativity and demanding people feel sorry for themselves, and guilty about everything, they might actually succeed in life. Yep, there are a great many "war heros" and "veterans" who are soft on terror, and soft on defense. They would rather wallow in self pitty and shame/guilt than move forward and insure what happened to them, NEVER happens to anyone else.

It's pretty easy to see why he lost, isn't it!

McCain has issues. Bringing those to light certainly can't hurt. Personally I would rather not have someone with unstable emotional problems running the country. McCain's not quite all there, that much is obvious.

 

I know I don't know a lot about McCain, but my observations have led me to believe he is quite unstable and not fit to govern a country. He may be OK as a governor of California though.