Burnt Orange Report

Andrew D,

These early polls don't mean much, primarily because Kerry is riding a media boom, and since he was an underdog for so long, didn't have to endure intense scrutiny of his record in the Senate, as Dean did his record. That will change. What I really object to, however, is claiming that LBJ was only "maybe" elected as a liberal President. Not quite.

Sherk

I would hardly consider LBJ liberal--progressive on fronts, yes; not exactly liberal.

The reason I am holding off on cheering for the numbers is because a) the republican slime machine has barely started up, as Karl Rove is warming up for round 2, and b) I believe that Osama bin Laden will be found in October 2004. Is Bush beatable? Absolutely. His record is abominable. However, he continues to politicize 9/11, the media is behind him almost 100%, and those people have one dirty trick up their sleeve after another. So, I am cautiously optimistic.

"...the republican slime machine..."

leodem,

The GOP Slime machine? Bush's rhetoric towards you on the left has been unfailingly civil. You might oppose his policies, but he has never slimed anyone. Not even ex-Sen. Cleland (we never questioned his "patriotism," just his judgement in blocking the dept. of Homeland security. There is a big difference)

The Dems, on the other hand, have not found an obscenity they won't use to describe Bush. "He went into the war for political gain" "he is deliberately destroying America" "He hates the poor" "He is deliberately screwing everyone but the rich" etc etc (no, those aren't verbatim, but every Dem presidential contender save maybe Lieberman has echoed these sentiments). You refuse to concede that Bush can disagree with your policies in good faith, that he might have invaded Iraq and cut taxes because he thought they were the right thing to do.

GOP slime machine? No, no one on the left has any right to accuse us of launching "slime" attacks in the campaign to come, given your rhetoric of late.

Sherk

Unfailingly civil, Sherk?
Civil? By whose definition?
I think not.
I stand by what I say.

Democrats supported the creation of the Department of Homeland Security when the administration initially resisted it.
Then the SLIMEBALL Republicans used Sen. Cleland's vote against some minor amendment to the bill creating the very same department against him in the most odious US Senate campaign of 2002.
Cleland lost three of his limbs in Vietnam while the Flightsuit-in-Chief was partying with the "champagne battalion" of the Texas Air National Guard.

Now THAT'S a clear example of hypocrisy if there ever was one.

That 2002 Georgia campaign is another example why Democrats are so fired up over choosing the most electable nominee this year. The real Democrats are the ones who want to get rid of Bush rather than split hairs over ideology. I don't care about stupid labels, I do care about winning.
There is no quest as worthy as sweeping Republican vermin out of the White House and Congress in 2004.

As for polls, the first Mayor Daley used to say that the only poll that counts is the one on election day.

Bush's low approval ratings are a matter of concern, although they have been vascillating wildly for the past few weeks. I'll reserve judgment until they calm down a bit.

However, his performance versus Kerry at the present time is simply irrelevant.

At this time in 2000, for instance, Bush had a considerable lead over Gore, a lead that predictably tapered off as the campaign heated up. When a presidential candidate hasn't been in the news for a while, he tends to get inflated numbers from the 'benefit of the doubt' crowd that trends toward a new face. You can't really read anything from it.

Cleland lost three of his limbs in Vietnam

Not to be uncivil or anything, but why is there always the implication that Cleland lost those limbs as a result of enemy action, when he actually lost them in a non-combat Jeep accident? Democrats are always wrapping Cleland in the flag of his "war" injuries, when they bear no more relation to his patriotism than those of any person disabled in a traffic accident.

Again, this is not to impugn Cleland's patriotism per se, just to argue against his disability being ipso facto proof of that patriotism.

I agree that these early polls don't mean much. There are too many things that can happen between now and November. In talking with Bush supporters of late, I keep hearing essentially the same thing from them: they probably won't vote for him again. It remains to be seen if they'll actually vote against him, but I can always hope.

when he actually lost them in a non-combat Jeep accident?

Max can probably take comfort from the fact that the accident wasn't caused by convicted drunk driver George W. Bush who never got closer to the war than El Paso, Texas.

Max can probably take comfort from the fact that the accident wasn't caused by convicted drunk driver George W. Bush who never got closer to the war than El Paso, Texas.

Tim Z, someone seems to be posting under your nom de blog as a parody of the vindictive leftwing attacks on Republicans discussed above.

Whoever is doing so, please desist. While your point is well taken, forged postings can be confusing to the debate.

Tim Z, someone seems to be posting under your nom de blog as a parody of the vindictive leftwing attacks on Republicans discussed above.

Obviously Mark Harden is trying to play silly mind games here.
He should just follow Harry Truman's advice and get out of the kitchen if he can't take the heat.

Democrats are fighting back this year. Republicans who don't like this turn of events will just have to console themselves by watching videos of the 1988 presidential campaign.

Max Cleland lost his limbs serving his country. Period. Yet, Bush, who was a party boy before he went AWOL from the NATIONAL GUARD saw fit to equate him with Osama bin Laden, et al. It doesn't matter how Cleland lost his limbs--he was in Vietnam while the chickenhawks were AWOL and cheerleaders at Ole Miss (Lott).
Finally, I want to say this--I don't blame Bush for being scared and not wanting to go to war. Not at all. If he had gotten deferments or gone to Canada, he would have a lot more respect from me. But to act like he is some type of war veteran by wearing a flight suit and prancing around a deck, while making thousands (I believe that is a ballpark amount of people on board the ship--in the 1000s), wait before seeing their families after months at sea, and creating the illusion they are way out at sea and declaring a "victory" is the type of unmitigated gall and arrogance I have come to expect from this prson and his administration. Lying and sending men and women TO DIE for his lie and his oil buddies while making Cleland, an actual veteran, out to be some sort of terrorist is inexcusable. I will say it again--I think Bush is SLIME! (Before I am chastised for "calling names"--has any Republican here ever chastised someone for making attacks on Bill Clinton's direction? Didn't think so--if you say yes, you are as big a liar as Bush). To quote Nancy Reagan "The Bushes are nothing but trust fund trash." I am still in shock that ANYONE here would nitpick about Max Cleland's war injuries. It doesn't matter how he got them, for Christ's sake!!!!!!! HE WENT TO WAR, AS A YOUNG SOLDIER WHOM THE REPUBLICANS NOW CLAIM TO SUPPORT WITH THE 'SUPPORT OUR TROOPS' CRY!
HYPOCRISY, ANYONE?

I second that. It isn't fair to Tim Z, and does nothing to improve the quality of debate on this blog, when bloggers impersonate others.

Sherk

leodem,

Yes, I feel pretty much the same way about Clinton as you do about Bush. I'm just pointing out you can't criticize any of us on the right for sliming Kerry given your rhetoric as of late, and that Bush has never used rhetoric that remotely approaches the level of hate and vitrol that Kerry and the other contenders. routinely spew at him.

As for Sen. Cleland, he was a liberal democrat representing a conservative state trying to hide his record behind his war injuries. He failed. Get over it.

Georgia is not a liberal state, yet Cleland voted the party line. The party line on dept. of homeland security was civil service protections (i.e. can't fire anyone) for the new department's employees. That is a horrible idea, but Cleland voted to hold up the creation of the DHS until it was included in the bill. We called him on it. He lost. That doesn't mean we challenged his patriotism.

Look, if this is the standard (never criticize anyone who has combat serivice/injuries) you are taking, you ought to have supported the wounded war veteran Dole over draft dodging Clinton in '96, but I'm willing to bet that wasn't the case.

Cordially,

Sherk

I've known Byron for over two years (whattup buddy!), so you can check with him if anybody really has serious concerns about my identity.
IP numbers can't be faked.

Even by Republican standards, this is one of the more idiotic methods they have used to stifle free speech. As the tide starts to turn against them, they will become more desperate and attempt to discredit those who expose their hypocrisy.

This is yet another reason why Democrats should speak out, get organized, and promote unity.

Again, this is not to impugn Cleland's patriotism per se, just to argue against his disability being ipso facto proof of that patriotism.

Well, Mark, you might want to check your facts first. Cleland did lose his limbs in a grenade explosion.

Keep the Freeper crap over there.

Regardless, that alone is not the proof of his patriotism, Mark. It's the fact that he served his country that is the proof, the fact that he volunteered. Even had he lost his limbs in a Jeep accident rather than from a grenade, he still lost them serving his country. He still risked his life for his country. That is hardly the same as a car wreck.

Surely, you're not that dense to think there's no difference.

Look, if this is the standard (never criticize anyone who has combat serivice/injuries) you are taking, you ought to have supported the wounded war veteran Dole over draft dodging Clinton in '96, but I'm willing to bet that wasn't the case.

Sherk, criticizing is one thing. You give some valid arguments against Cleland, but come on, opposing legislation to protect jobs--how is that supporting bin Laden, as Saxby's commercial showed? To juxtapose Cleland and bin Laden is to suggest that he's aiding the enemy (treason).

And before you start defending Saxby's argument, remember that Bush himself opposed the DHS, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Furthermore, Cleland supported creating the DHS before Bush. It is cheap politics to hang riders on a bill like that so that anyone opposing the riders is attacked for their lack of patriotism, as Cleland was. He did not oppose the DHS, and to say that he did is a lie.

Cleland did lose his limbs in a grenade explosion.

Well, my bad - not a Jeep wreck. But WHOSE grenade was it?

Senator Max Cleland, of Georgia, was 25 when he had three limbs amputated after an American grenade exploded when he picked it up near Khe Sanh in South Vietnam.

So it wasn't a Soviet or a Vietnamese grenade. That coward Max Cleland self-inflicted his wounds with a hand grenade to avoid serving. Definitely not leadership material. I sure am glad Saxby Chambliss rightly impugned his patriotism.

Great detective work, Mark.

"Jeep accident" . . . "American grenade" . . . I see how you were easily confused.

Come on, Mark, you know the rest of the Freeper line . . . it happened while he was drunk playing games with the grenade.

You're implying something that isn't true. An improperly pinned grenade fell after transport, and to keep it from killing or injuring others, Cleland picked it up.

Like hell you don't want to impugn his patriotism. You're too lazy to read 5 minutes to find the details of his service so you throw some out desperate CYA line. One would think you'd be more a little more careful after the asinine remark about Cleland.

vindictive leftwing attacks on Republicans

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Since you have no credibility, you should at least show a shred of decency by writing Cleland and apologizing for spreading vindictive rightwing lies about his injuries and saying that his amputations weren't in the line of duty.

But that would require taking responsibility for one's actions.

Tx Bubba,

Look, Cleland was voting to stop the creation of the DHS until civil service protections were extended to the department's employees, and was willing to prevent its creation if those regulation's were not extended. Bush and the GOP thought that civil service protections would prevent the DHS from operating effectively in the war on terror, and that not creating it, or creating it with those regulations, would leave America less secure than if it was created and the President could fire incompetent employees who weren't doing an effective job protecting America. You might disagree, but that is hardly an unreasonable position.

We did not challenge Cleland's patriotism, we merely pointed out that his votes had left America less secure and more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, which they had. Look, the standard that we can't criticise Cleland for having bad judgement on security issues without questioning his Patriotism is absurd, unless you agree that pretty much every left winger on this blog is also challenging Bush's patriotism. National security is a legitimate political issue, and Cleland was on the wrong side of it in a very conservative state, and he paid the political price for his positions. That happens to pro-life Republicans in the Northeast and California all the time.

Get over Cleland's legitimate defeat, and stop spinning this myth that we are saying that Dems are unpatriotic America haters. We aren't. Your policies, held in good faith, would nonetheless (at least in our view) leave America more vulnerable and less secure, and we want to stop that.

Sherk

Get over Cleland's legitimate defeat, and stop spinning this myth that we are saying that Dems are unpatriotic America haters. We aren't. Your policies, held in good faith, would nonetheless (at least in our view) leave America more vulnerable and less secure, and we want to stop that.

Sherk, there is no myth. You can't possibly be so obtuse as to say that juxtaposing the image of Cleland and bin Laden wasn't an attack on Cleland's patriotism. Deal with that challenge: Tell me how that ad was not an attack on his patriotism.

Go back to my response to you and read it again: That ad had absolutely nothing to do with the issues. Look at Mark's example on this very thread, using Freeper lies to say that a war hero isn't a war hero.

I'll repeat it again: Criticizing Cleland on the issues is one thing. But the bin Laden ad is something completely different because it portrayed Cleland as being allied and supporting bin Laden. To use your own argument, you may disagree with Cleland's opposition to the riders on the DHS bill, but it is hardly an unreasonable position.

Do you feel that the moveon.org ad comparing Bush to Hitler was fair game? (I don't.) But your argument here suggests that it was fair.

Until that ad ran, Cleland was in the lead for that race. So, obviously, he wasn't so out of touch as you would like to mislead. It took a complete distortion of Cleland's support for DHS for Saxby to win.

I don't know who your "we" refers to, but you obviously do not listen and read the conservative mouthpieces like Coulter, Savage, Limbaugh, and others. Does the book title "Treason" ring a bell, Sherk?

Don't come here and play innocent.

And if you want to say "our" policies would leave America weaker, then make that feeble argument, but don't run away from "your" attacks by calling them just issue-based arguments. They weren't. It's a Republican president that has ruined the reputation of America in the world. It's a Republican president that distracted the U.S. from the man who killed Americans. It's a Republican administration that compromised the identity of an agent for political games.

The only people whining here are you and Mark. You don't like being called on the slime that your party put on Cleland.

Deal with it.

Tx Bubba,

"You can't possibly be so obtuse as to say that juxtaposing the image of Cleland and bin Laden wasn't an attack on Cleland's patriotism. Deal with that challenge: Tell me how that ad was not an attack on his patriotism."

No, it wasn't an attack on his patriotism. It was an attack on his judgement, and the ad highlighted the fact that his policies would make it easier for Bin Laden to strike again. Powerful imagery, yes, but the ad was edited after the initial protests to remove the clips of Bin Laden and Saddam. The Chambliss campaign kept running it, and Cleland's numbers kept sinking. Look, the voters of Georgia aren't stupid. They knew that Cleland sacrificed a lot for the U.S., and that he wasn't trying to help terrorists. But they also thought his decision to block the DHS was poor judgement, and decided they didn't want him representing their state anymore.

As for the Bush/Hitler ads, they compare Bush to Hitler and insinuate he is trying to turn America into a fascist dictatorship. The Chambliss ads hit Cleland for harming the US national security and making it easier for terrorists to strike. That isn't calling Cleland an Al Qaeda operative, or a mass murderer, or insinuating he shares their goals. The two cases aren't comprable.

About Cleland leading in the polls before the ad ran ... well, Gov. Barnes was leading in the polls too, and he still lost by 5 points. The ad never targetted House Dems in the state, only Cleland, yet now-Reps. Gingrey and Burns won gerrymandered "Democratic" seats in GA (a lesson for all involved in the TX redistricting. Things don't always go as planned), and the Democratic President of the State Senate and Speaker of the House were also booted. The phenomenal turnout that the GA state GOP generated had just as much to do with Cleland's defeat than the Chambliss ad, but you insist on attributing his loss entirely to that spot.

As for Coulter, yeah, she is a nut. NRO dumped her for good reason, and I disagree with the thesis of "Treason." Liberals are misguided, yes, but except for a few fringe socialists and college profs, I don't think that many of you hate America or wish to see it destroyed.

As for our weak policies:

Ruined the U.S. reputation? The Iraqis are fairly happy with us, and Libya has suddenly become surprisingly cooperative. Even Iran is dealing with nuclear inspectors. Are we unpopular in some opinion polls in Europe? Yes. So what? American policies shouldn't be focused on earning high ratings in foreign opinion polls -- though that can be a nice by product, I admit -- but to keep America safe and spread freedom throughout the world. If other people have a problem with that, too bad, and it is not worth compromising these objectives to placate them.

If abolishing Medicare, Medicaid, and HUD, was supported by 75% of the U.S. population, would you say that we should dump the programs? Or would you argue that the President should do the right thing (in your view) and keep the programs intact, even if they were highly unpopular? Popularity can be nice, but that doesn't mean you should base policies on it.

As for the Plame, she wasn't even an undercover operative. National Security wasn't hurt a bit by her "outing."

The distraction against Bin Laden charge makes no sense. Why can't we both invade Iraq and pursue Bin Laden? There are only so many forces you can assign to the hunt for Bin Laden before new analysts would have little constructive to ad. It is called diminishing marginal returns.

Question: If we do catch Bin Laden before the election, will you (a) retract this criticism of the Bush admin and the war in Iraq? and (b) will you complain about an October (or September, or June, or whatever) surprise, etc., and how it was all a political plot to re-elect W?

Just curious.

Sherk

"That doesn't mean we challenged his patriotism.

Look, if this is the standard (never criticize anyone who has combat serivice/injuries) you are taking, you ought to have supported the wounded war veteran Dole over draft dodging Clinton in '96, but I'm willing to bet that wasn't the case."

Sherk,
That is probably the worst argument I have ever heard. First, the Republican machime DID SLIME Max Cleland. They DID attack his patriotism. To say otherwise is to live either under a rock or in a fool's paradise--take your pick. And Cleland can HARDLY be described as a liberal--I suggest you read his record--then you will see he hardly toes our partly line. And buy a dictionary while you are at it--"liberal" is perhaps the most oft-misused adjective, coming in a close second to "radical." It seems to me that he spent a lot of time voting with Republicans--but, Georgia is a conservative state, so he was going along w/ his constituents.

Finally, I am not suggesting that a war record is the only criteria to use. If I agreed with Bob Dole's record and his vision for America, I would have voted for him in 96. I take issue over "nitpicking" (and lying!) about war injuries.

Also, I will repeat--my rhetoric is not NEARLY as bad as the filth unleashed upon Clinton--if you have a problem hearing people tell it like it is--that Bush is a liar who sent Americans into a war so he and Cheney and co. could get richer, and that the Republican spin machine is less than forthright, well---like I believe another blogger said, if you can't take the heat.....

Don't try to censor me on a Democratic-friendly site. Ever.

Pleasantly,
leodem

The Republican message is clear. If you support the rights of workers, you are also a friend of Osama.

"And Cleland can HARDLY be described as a liberal"

Cleland's lifetime American Conservative Union Rating: 16/100. He might not be as liberal as, say, Barbara Boxer, but he was still pretty Liberal.

No, I'm not suggesting war injuries are the only critieria to use. I'm just saying that Kerry supporters have difficulty consistently criticising Bush for not fighting in Vietnam when Clinton didn't either.

As for what right leaners have said about Slick Willie, well, that isn't the issue here. The point was how civil Bush has been, and his rhetoric hasn't come close to Kerry, Dean, Edwards, etc. levels of vitrol and hate. Do Kerry & Co.'s rhetoric approximate what right wing commentators said about Bubba? Yes, but they are Presidential contenders, not pundits, and should be held to a different standard, just as Bush should.

Finally, pointing out inconsistency isn't "censoring." You on the left are way too sensitive about that. Objecting to the content of one's speech doesn't mean you believe they should be forced to shut up, it means you disagree with them, or think they are out of line.

As Ever,

Sherk

No, it wasn't an attack on his patriotism. It was an attack on his judgement, and the ad highlighted the fact that his policies would make it easier for Bin Laden to strike again.

B.S.

Let's see if you can understand this clearly: Cleland supported creating the DHS.

You and Chambliss accuse Cleland of aiding bin Laden (that's called treason). And treason is questioning someone's patriotism. It's rather simple, yet you keep denying it.

Yet, if the Republicans really wanted to create the DHS quickly 1) Bush would not have opposed it initially and 2) they would not have attached contentious amendments to it. Now, whom are you accusing of aiding bin Laden?

And you have the gall to accuse Cleland of not putting a priority on the country's safety. The bin Laden/Cleland ad was highly irresponsible and misleading and accused Cleland of treason.

Question: If we do catch Bin Laden before the election, will you (a) retract this criticism of the Bush admin and the war in Iraq?

Hell no. The war in Iraq has NOTHING to do with al Qaeda, as Colin Powell admitted: There is no evidence. As the White House and its conservative defenders now argue, Iraq wasn't an "imminent threat" (though Bush's handlers agreed that it was).

Our priority was and should be al Qaeda. But it obviously isn't. We should not pay the price for an ADD president.

Bush ruined our credibility. We said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Of course, they didn't. Now it's "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." Thanks for making a joke of the U.S., Bush.

I do find it very interesting that you use "before the election." Glad to see your priorities out in the open.

As for the Plame, she wasn't even an undercover operative. National Security wasn't hurt a bit by her "outing."

Sherk, that's just sad. Politics before security. There seems to be a trend.

Clinton would be proud of your squirming.

Tx Bubba,

Cleland's position on DHS was clear, he supported its creation, but only if it was nearly impossible to fire any DHS employees. If that wasn't the case, he was prepared to stop the department's creation. This wasn't some "minor" ammendment that Cleland voted against, it was an ammendment (heavily supported by unions, which are major Dem donors, but correllation does not necessarily mean causation) that would have prevented the DHS from operating efficiently. If he couldn't get it, he would allow the DHS to die. We had every right to argue that his position endangered national security.

Arguing that did doesn't mean we are challenging his patriotism. You have argued frequently that the War in Iraq harms the war on Al Qaeda. What if the Dems run an ad this fall to the effect of "...Bush's war in Iraq has distracted us from the real fight, and made it easier for Bin Laden to strike again." What if that ad included pictures of Bin Laden juxtaposed with Pres. Bush? Would you have just challenged Bush's, and every member of congress who voted for the war's, patriotism and implied they wanted Al Qaeda to succeed and that they were guilty of treason? Or would that ad challenge their judgement, without accusing them of complicity in Bin Laden's crimes? I don't see how the Chambliss ad is any more illegitimate than the hypothetical anti-Bush ad (which reflects the feelings of many of you on the BOR) I just envisioned.

As for the USA's credibility, *everyone* and their mother said Saddam had WMD. Clinton, Gore, Kofi Annan, the UN, the EU, etc. etc. The consensus of virtually every intelligence agency in the Western world said Saddam was pursuing Nukes and had Chem and Bio weapons. The fact that Bush acted on universally shared, but probably faulty, intelligence reports does not implicate his honesty or the US credibility. At least, no more than it implicates Clinton/Gore/Annan/everyone else's credibility to. Bush just acted on that intelligence, while everyone else was content to ignore it.

I mentioned "before the election" because I think this is a purely political attack on Bush with no basis in substance. (Yes, I know you sincerely disagree) The US army and intelligence services are large. They can do more than one thing at once effectively. Political attacks on Bush won't matter too much after Nov. 2nd, since there will be nothing more you can do to deny him a second term, so it doesn't really matter if anyone is screaming that we were "distracted" from Al Qaeda then, but I was wondering if you would be willing to do anything that might give Bush a small political boost before the election if it turns out that you are proven wrong on the point.

As for Plame, look, she shouldn't have been "outed" but Novak's column didn't harm US security, Plame wasn't a WH conspiracy, Bush had nothing to do with it, and it says nothing about his handling of the war on terror. Using it to attack him is a non-starter.

Cheers!

Sherk

"As for what right leaners have said about Slick Willie, well, that isn't the issue here."

Ah, but Sherk, it IS the issue here. You see, I think that your main problem avec moi (en mes yeux) is my "rhetoric of late". It also seems to be a strong sore point for you--that here on BOR, some of us have some...issues... with Mr. Bush. I have been chastised by you time and time again, as you end your posts with a blatant, pointed sarcasm that would make even Jane Austen roll her eyes at the irony of it all. Please allow me to begin to explain my point with some quotes:

"Get out of here, you f------g Communist c--t."
--Richard Mellon Scaife, famous right winger, benefactor to said political wing to Karen Rothmeyer, a journalist from the Columbia Journalism review. The rest of the conversation is even worse. (BTW, I censored myself here, as not everyone likes to read the words actually said...more on the 'censorship' issue and my hypersensitive nature later....)

"Scumbag"--Dan Burton (R) to the Washington Post, on Bill Clinton.

"Rapist" "unserious" "perpetual preener"--George Will, conservative columnist, on Bill Clinton

"Sociopath" Craig Shirley in the Washington Times, on Bill Clinton

"Craven miscreant" Michelle Malkin, in the Washington Times, on...you guessed it...Bill Clinton.

(Quotes obtained from "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them"; Al Franken. Dutton, NY, NY 10014. 2003.) Great book.

I will not even go into what I read on Free Republic.

These people mentioned above (not the Freepers) are professionals at the top of their field. When they said those things about an ELECTED president no one batted an eyelid. There was no public outcry. No one went on and attacked those people of being unpatriotic, un-American, or of compromising national securtiy. However, if anyone says boo about Mr. Bush, well--it's un-American! I'd better "watch what [I] say, and watch what [I] do"! (Ari Fleischer) Please. Here is the point--you come on this blog--which you are perfectly welcome to do--and make bad arguments (again, your perogative)and whine when people say something negative about your Mr. Bush. You seem sooo concerned about the "rhetoric". Yet, I hear nothing about your efforts to further public discourse by going to places such as Free Republic and asking them to tone it down. I hope you understand, as I'm done explaining to you--for now, anyway. And I apologize to everyone for having to read more of my drivel, but here goes...

"Finally, pointing out inconsistency isn't "censoring." You on the left are way too sensitive about that. Objecting to the content of one's speech doesn't mean you believe they should be forced to shut up, it means you disagree with them, or think they are out of line."

You have not pointed out any "inconsistencies". (Perceived, maybe; actual, I don't think so.) My rhetoric is not "out of line". That seems to be your main problem that I talk about Republican SLIME. I am not "out of line" for voicing my (benign) opinions. Believing that I am and that it is out of line to impugn the "president", my friend, is the beginning of censorship. Am I sensitive to this? Possibly, as I know that the Constitution is probably hanging on Ashcroft's toilet paper roll right now.

Finally, as I have things to do, I need to address one more point before I depart this "discussion."

"No, I'm not suggesting war injuries are the only critieria [sic] to use. I'm just saying that Kerry supporters have difficulty consistently criticising [sic] Bush for not fighting in Vietnam when Clinton didn't either"

I will once again state that few of us blame Bush for not wanting to go to war. I have already said that.(I am speaking on behalf of myself and some close friends.) Clinton got out on student deferments, as did MANY of the present-day warhawks in the Bush admin. Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. Trent Lott was a cheerleader at Ole Miss. Cheney got 5 student deferments and one marriage deferment. Ashcroft had teaching deferments. the list goes on. Get the picture? Bush was in a unit known as the Champagne Squadron (?), made up of young "men" from privileged families, whose parents could get them a National Guard spot. Bush had an incredibly low score on his flying test, and yet was admitted into the program (Texas Air National Guard)very quickly, instead of waiting his turn or possibly receiving a draft card. While in the National Guard, he was AWOL. (There is still a $3500 reward in Alabama if anyone knows of his whereabouts during that time.) To want to avoid the war, and to openly oppose it--well, that is one thing. Opposing the war and not serving hardly smacks of hypocrisy. But to run out on NATIONAL GUARD DUTY! While your father is advocating use of force!
Then he lies about Iraq, and my generation, and younger, are being used as target practice. Also, if going to war is not a criteria to the "right", then why was Clinton's absence in Vietnam such a hot-button issue in 92 that Bush 1 launched an attack on his patriotism? (On Larry King Live.) Huh? And why were you all hot and bothered when calling Clinton a "draft dodger"?

I have said about all I care to say. Further effort on this issue is really not necessary; I doubt by rebuttals were even absorbed.

Cheerily,
Leodem

BTW, TX Bubba, thanks for the posts--the whole Jeep accident story didn't sound quite right. Thanks for uncovering the lies. :)

"The fact that Bush acted on universally shared, but probably faulty, intelligence reports does not implicate his honesty or the US credibility."

Harry Truman had a plaque on his desk, which stated "The Buck Stops Here." Bush's buck seems to be getting passed to everyone else. Hmmm. Just a thought.

Also, he was preparing to invade Iraq practically from day one of his admin. He knew damn well there were no WMDs. HE LIED. SOLDIERS DIED.