I think the Smearboaters situation is going to send a lot of undecideds over to the Kerry side of things. Bush and Rove have been dirty campaigners for years, and while it’s not pretty to see Kerry have to go through this sort of slander, people will remember that Bush didn’t show up for duty except for his paychecks and free dental exams.
Have you ever heard of Michael Moore? Was that “slander”?
It’s funny how many liberals I’ve talked to who have admitted that Michael Moore’s movie was over the top, meaning that it had a lot of unsubstantiated claims. However, they all admit that it is a ‘good’ movie afterall and presents ‘another side’. Essentially, they are admiting that lies can be mixed in with truths to produce a pleasing political outcome. AND, few in the media said that Kerry was connected to it. Kerry is not behind the MILLIONS in moveon.org either.
But noooooooo … Bush and his evil campaign are all behind the Swift Boat Veterans that served WITH Kerry.
This campaign is so rich (and I’m not talking about Kerry’s wealth). Kerry can dish it out, but he freaks out when he gets a little tiny fraction of his own medicine. He’s sending his lawyers out now to intimidate book distributors and retailers.
They said early in the campaign that Bush was going to “burn books” … Well, it looks like the Kerry campaign is beating him to the punch.
Look man. Time to get out of your diapers. Your party has had NINE full months on CONTINUAL slander against Bush. You didn’t see Bush running around trying to get the myriad of Bush-hate books off the shelves. You didn’t see him out there responding to Michael Moore with counter-ads.
I’m sorry Mr. Kerry. YOU YOURSELF have made the four months in Vietnam the cornerstone of your campaign. You can’t stop reminding us of your “hero” status and “your medals”. If you can’t stand the heat of the media anal examination that comes with presidential elections, then I suggest you run for something less demanding.
Michael Moore is probably considered “over the top” because he uses a lot of innuendo and tries to make connections that may not be conclusively provable. Apparently F-9/11 asks a lot of questions and does point out the fairly interesting pool of Bin Ladens, friends of the Bin Ladens, and Saudi royalty that the Bush family can be tied to through investment activity in the Carlisle Group and past history. Is it slander? Well, it might be good to hear from somebody who’s seen the movie. If Moore is only asking questions and showing the threads of investment and other connections that do exist, then perhaps he is not offering up slander. I’ve heard that the movie is filled with documents, photos, film footage, etc. However, it would be my guess that the Republicans are going to have a real problem now that Dale Earnhardt Jr. is urging everyone that this is a “must see” movie.
Moveon.org has been around stirring things up long before a Democrat candidate was chosen. Kerry has condemned their ads attacking the president for being AWOL, which is being pretty generous as far as I can see. Bush and his campaign have not disowned or condemned the Smearboaters’ false ads… and if you’ve been catching the news today, you’ll see that one of the people in the Smearboaters ads had to step down from working on the Bush campaign where he’d been a coordinator for veteran issues.
You attack the Democrats as having slandered Bush, but so far they’ve been simply hitting him with the truth. They’ve had a postive message so far, but all the Bush campaign can do is try to continue lying about the economy, about the war in Iraq, about the lack of progress on fighting terror, and so on. The most desperate ploy has been the use of the Smearboaters… and how are we supposed to believe that the Bush campaign has not been coordinating with them when a Bush campaign person coordinating vet matters is appearing in the ads??
Oh, and Bush can’t get the anti-Bush books off the shelves. Why? The books are filled with the truth about his incompetent, sloppy, corrupt administration. These writers actually use facts… something that the Republicans (yourself included) don’t seem to be able to handle.
Which facts do you think I can’t handle? Remember, there is the “view all posts” feature in this forum.
But is it not true that, in the absence of a US invasion, the Iraqis would not have been able to enjoy the chance to have “the same right to choose their leaders and run their own affairs that we so fiercely claim”?
How much of a choice was Saddam Hussein?
Pinesay – Well, perhaps you could start with facts in your own post.
You call them Bush-hate books, so perhaps you can define that a bit more. Which books would you define as Bush-hate books? Why is it that Bush is so “merciful” that he allows even these books to remain on the shelves? If Bush simply has no legal basis for challenging these books, then you have no point here.
Who is the “they” you claim said that Bush would burn books?
Please give us some information about precisely what slanders the Democrat party has distributed over the past 9 months. You state: “Your party has had NINE full months on CONTINUAL slander against Bush.” Please provide some basis upon which this assertion is based. Kerry has generously condemned the unrelated moveon.org ads about Bush’s AWOL period, so please be careful in your wording.
Meanwhile, the Smearboaters have been running ads featuring a guy who was a coordinator for veteran matters for the Bush campaign… no saying that there is “no connection” between the GOP and the smearboaters now.
All the while allowing democrats like Wesley Clark to continue the criticisms.
In the same way, Bush has repeatedly “generously” said that Kerry is justifiably proud of his Vietnam record, all the while letting Bob Dole have a swings of the hatchet.
No one is beyond these tactics it seems!
No, no … and no.
I’m not going to let you change the subject, again.
I told you to show me where, and I quote you, “I don’t seem to be able to handle the FACTS”. So, instead of doing your homework tyring to find places in my posts where I have challenged facts presented by others, you give me a machine-gun of … quite frankly … irrelevant questions, which by the way are almost all based on my opinion, not in the realm of fact. You need to go back to school and study the difference between fact and opinion.
For example, it is my opinion that the books on 60 minutes, the play about assinating the president and moveon.org, etc. etc. is based on hate. This is not a fact, nor could it ever be. 
However, I did make one statement that does fall in the realm of fact, and here it is:
Howard Dean, July 27, 2004
“I think the library trustee is pretty important in an administration where they like book-burning better than reading books,” he said to applause.
usatoday.com/news/politicsel … usat_x.htm
By the way, my point is that Bush doesn’t have to go out and try to violate the First Amendment. Kerry, for some reason, feels like he has to. The more he tries to strong-arm citizens into silence, the more heat he is going to bring to the issue.
All of this would have gone away already if Kerry would just do the following:
- Release his records.
- Answer the charges directly. He hasn’t denied what the swift boat veterns have said. He’s only attacked them personally.
Pinesay, so you’re just guessing about these things and don’t have any facts to back up your assertions about the Democrats or Kerry.
The best you’ve come up with is to change from vaguely saying “they” to owning up that it’s really just one person (Howard Dean) who said something.
Well, when you want to make the rest of your post rely on facts, we’ll be here waiting…
Since the election is only happening in a few states anyway, lets gleefully ignore the rest of the country.
Looks like John Kerry is doing well for himself in the swing states.
[quote]
Boyd
[quote=“pinesay”]
How will this idiot meet his god??? He obviously didn’t have the balls to stand up the genocide of Saddam and his mudering sons? Otherwise, he’d have a bullet in his head. He shoud talk. [/quote]
Right… the nice thing about a dictatorship is how it separates the men from the boys. I mean, you really know the pussies when you see them - they’re all pussies, that’s why they’re not dead. It really simplifies things.
Thank God our boys don’t have to carry the extra burden of viewing Iraqis with humanity or respect. I mean, if any of them had any balls, they’d probably be standing up against our occupation.
Oh wait a minute…
[quote=“jplowman”]Boyd
"Over the past few days administration officials have let it be known that they will not object to the recent announcement by Mr. Sharon’s government of more than 2,000 new housing units in Jewish settlements in the West Bank – even though official administration policy opposes all such construction. . .
For now, though, the United States will pay the price for its latest concession to Mr. Sharon, which has been headline news in Israel and around the Middle East. Once again the Bush administration will be seen as uncritically supporting a move by Israel to expand settlements regarded by the rest of the world as illegal, in contradiction to stated U.S. policy and commitments to allies in Europe and the Middle East. The fact that the White House has taken this position at a time when Mr. Bush is seeking support from pro-Israel voters in Florida and other closely contested states will raise reasonable questions about whether there are any grounds for his position other than electoral pandering."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30284-2004Aug24.html
[quote=“spook”]"Over the past few days administration officials have let it be known that they will not object to the recent announcement by Mr. Sharon’s government of more than 2,000 new housing units in Jewish settlements in the West Bank – even though official administration policy opposes all such construction. . .
For now, though, the United States will pay the price for its latest concession to Mr. Sharon, which has been headline news in Israel and around the Middle East. Once again the Bush administration will be seen as uncritically supporting a move by Israel to expand settlements regarded by the rest of the world as illegal, in contradiction to stated U.S. policy and commitments to allies in Europe and the Middle East. The fact that the White House has taken this position at a time when Mr. Bush is seeking support from pro-Israel voters in Florida and other closely contested states will raise reasonable questions about whether there are any grounds for his position other than electoral pandering."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30284-2004Aug24.html[/quote]
Uh . . . so what??
“Once again the Bush administration will be seen as uncritically supporting a move by Israel to expand settlements regarded by the rest of the world as illegal, in contradiction to stated U.S. policy and commitments to allies in Europe and the Middle East.”
Don’t you think this hurts our attempts to build credibility and support for our troops in Iraq?
[color=blue]What do you think our friend Tony Blair is going to do, for example, the next time we ask him to stick his neck out for us?:[/color]
Tony Blair elated by George Bush’s Middle East peace pledge - Saturday, 15 March , 2003
HAMISH ROBERTSON: Well, Britain’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair has been elated by the US pledge on a road map to peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Mr Blair is convinced it’s essential to demonstrate what he calls an “even-handed” approach to the Middle East, in order to contain moderate Arab opinion in the face of a looming war with Iraq.
MATT PEACOCK: With war now likely by the end of next week, and that second UN resolution unlikely to be put, Mr Blair still hasn’t given up on a frantic round of diplomacy, and today he was energised by George Bush’s “belated big step,” as Mr Blair described it, in announcing the road map for peace, which up until now Israel has insisted needs changing, and which Mr Blair believes will prove an even-handed approach to the Middle East.
Mr Blair says the cynics over its timing are wrong, yes, it does come before a likely war with Iraq, but because of that war it’s even more important to give this commitment.
TONY BLAIR: I believe that many people in the Arab and Muslim world detest Saddam, know he’s a tyrant and a dictator who has killed many of his own people. Their real criticism of us throughout has been, show that you’re even handed, show that you’re also committed to ending the suffering of other people, because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and today we have the commitment the people have asked us to give.
MATT PEACOCK: It was one (commitment) even Mr Blair didn’t expect until he spoke to George Bush this week, and it’s one that he urged journalists to hold both men to.
http://abc.net.au/am/content/s807511.htm
“Once again the Bush administration will be seen as uncritically supporting a move by Israel to expand settlements regarded by the rest of the world as illegal, in contradiction to stated U.S. policy and commitments to allies in Europe and the Middle East.”
Don’t you think this hurts our attempts to build credibility and support for our troops in Iraq?[/quote]
Er . . . how?
Do you think that if we hammer on Israel, France will suddenly send legions of Gitane-smoking anarchosocialist students to teach Iraqis existential philosophy? The Iraqis don’t want the Turks to “help”, nobody but Russia wants the Russians to invade, er, “help”, and nobody trusts any of Iraq’s neighbors, least of all the neighbors themselves. What, will Iran send a relief force to Najaf? Oh, what fun THAT would be!
Look, Spooky, I have no love whatsoever for Israel. I think they’re the most useless bunch of self-absorbed assholes on the planet; when they’re not committing espionage against the U.S., they’re picking fights and dragging the U.S. into them (more fool U.S.). But there is no effect on the national interests of the U.S. when Israel shovels a couple of thousand more settlers into the West Bank and Gaza Strip. What, the Palestinians are going to get annoyed? They’re already annoyed, so what. They’re so annoyed they blow themselves up in crowds of Israelis, and they applauded and danced in the streets when bin Laden’s attacks on the Pentagon and WTC succeeded. Screw 'em.
[color=blue]Another view:[/color]
"In failing to condemn the Israeli violation, the Bush administration also reinforces the case made by Arab terrorists that the US is not truly interested in a Palestinian state. Every dollar spent on US media outreach to the Muslim world seems wasted when headlines proclaiming US support for new Israeli settlements ricochet around the Middle East. . .
But the White House errs in sacrificing its long-term goals in the Middle East peace process and the war on terrorism, for the short-term hope of influencing internal Israeli politics."
With less than two months to election day the Bush campaign is in need of a dramatic ploy to ensure victory.
The answer is a Monica Lewinsky, to send Bush’s approval ratings up into the Clintonsphere.
The law of averages would suggest that sooner or later the American voters will come to their senses no matter how thick they are. The danger in this for the Republicans is that it may happen before the election.
If the Bush team can find an atriculate slut with big threepenny bits to reveal that Dubya had shafted her in the Oval Office his approval ratings should go into the sixties. If they follow up three weeks before election day with two more slags claiming that they had had a threesup this will guarantee him a landslide.
Naturally, Bush will need a Ken Starr who is a Bush puppet. Who better than the Ayotollah Ashcroft, the Attorney General?
Dubya would have to go on television denying he had intercourse with either of the whores accusing him, only cunnilingus (if he can learn to pronounce it by then), thereby confessing and shifting his image from warmonger to whoremonger. American hearts will melt and we will be asurred of another two invasions, perhaps a regime change or two, oil at $100 a barrel, the middle east in flames and the economy lounging in the Ilya Nastase (karzy).
Bush: ‘War on terror cannot be won’
icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100 … _page.html
The chicken hawk admits it, now why can’t any of his loonie followers admit it?