Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Shock: Bush Says Something Intelligent watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Is it actually prooven that the wounds were self inflicted or is it speculation? Just wondering because I hadn't heard that claim.
    Kerry has admitted they 'may have been self-inflicted'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    reagan for one, very similar in FP
    examples of why Bush isnt very good at executing his policies.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Again i would have thought it farely easy to realise what constitutes a combat situation and what does not - there should be no doubt over Kerrys war record and consequent decoration, either he faught or he did not and if the latter were true i would have thought it rather easy to prove definitively. Why have the Republicans not done so? The logical assumption is that these claims that Kerry is a fraud are simply propaganda.
    or that the Republicans have no interest in talking about a non-issue. An issue that the Democrats raised and are now finding themselves struggling over.

    With the exception of the guy who had to be sacked when he was found out as having actively contributed to these adverts. As i said before, if Kerrys record is so easy to prove as fraudulent, the Republican Party would have torn it apart -why have they not?
    This isnt a Moore film. Kerry fought in Vietnam, but his record is distorted. The Republicans have the good grace to respect the service that he did provide.

    Also fraudelent record or not, he at least went to fight when it would have been just as easy for him as a young man of 'patrician' background to have stayed home like the coward George the Younger.
    Kerry did everything in his power to escape combat, he even wounded himself to that effect. Bush has the common decency to admit that he had the privilege of a good family standing. Bush also praises Kerry for the service he DID provide. Bush delivered what was expected of him, I dont think that is the mark of a coward.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Well said George.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Well said George.
    indeed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Well said George.
    he only wants it dropped he because he knows it is an issue he will lose on
    (Original post by vienna95)
    examples of why Bush isnt very good at executing his policies.
    look at post war iraq, no plans were put in place to stop the looting, that is something the administration should of thought about for starters
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i) the difference between admitting to ones good fortune and lying about ones non-existant war record is great.
    ii) an ability to act as a commander-in-chief is in no way represented by ones war service
    iii) the American public overwhelmingly favour Bush as their leader in context of defense and military matters.
    you have missed my point i think and that makes all of this entirely irrelevant
    On this single issue, would prefer any day a vetern of any war than someone who sat at home due to their father's power for the simple reason we have experienced more things.

    I realise that Bush and Kerry have other positive and negative sides associated with them but in that post I was not examining those.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    he only wants it dropped he because he knows it is an issue he will lose on
    Kerry wants it dropped or Bush wants it dropped? I think both of them want it dropped so they can move on and talk about the issues. I think it will probably go away as soon as the Republican Convention starts. That will give the media something else to talk about.

    Unfortunately for Kerry, he really has nothing else to talk about. If Vietnam is taken off the table, what can he offer? He spent 19 years in the Senate and I don't see one significant accomplishment he's made during that period.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Unfortunately for Kerry, he really has nothing else to talk about. If Vietnam is taken off the table, what can he offer? He spent 19 years in the Senate and I don't see one significant accomplishment he's made during that period.
    He married two rich women in that time. *hooray for marrying money*
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    he only wants it dropped he because he knows it is an issue he will lose on
    dropped? he is quite vocal about his support for Kerry's accurate war record and that he had an easier time of it in the National Guard. its a non-issue for Bush, Kerry was more heroic. the only person to lose credibility over this affair is Kerry himself. people are more concerned by lying than admitting the facts as they are, whether they be ultimately critical of your person.

    look at post war iraq, no plans were put in place to stop the looting, that is something the administration should of thought about for starters
    the plan was: let them do it, i) that money is essentially money stolen from them by Saddam ii) they need to let off steam, it may be of benefit to them psychologically and thus strategically to the coalition iii) preventing looting will be an almost impossible task, it would result in firing on Iraqis. iv) thats not the press the US army wanted.

    i would have liked to seen the coalition shoot looters, but they ultimately chose against this.

    this is not US administration policy, and not Bush policy. any other examples?

    you have missed my point i think and that makes all of this entirely irrelevant
    On this single issue, would prefer any day a vetern of any war than someone who sat at home due to their father's power for the simple reason we have experienced more things.
    sat at home? he served. Kerry spent months in service and has very little support from those he fought with. his credentials as a leader are dubious to say the least. talking of experience, Bush has had 4 years of the real thing and according to the US public, he is by far and away the candidate that they see as being the best 'leader' and the best 'commander-in-chief' able to defend them. Kerry's support is based on ideological and political differences alone.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "the only person to lose credibility over this affair is Kerry himself. people are more concerned by lying than admitting the facts as they are, whether they be ultimately critical of your person."

    i think Pat Buchanan sums up Kerrys credibility,

    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40206

    "Why are the Big Media savaging the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Why are the Kerryites telling us to move on and debate the real issues – health care, education, the economy?

    Because they know this could kill John Kerry's candidacy. Because they know this is not just about Vietnam, but about the credibility and character of the man who would be president. "

    Compare this to President Bush who is principled, strong-willed and straight talking, not to mention a faithful and loving husband, dedicated to family and country. These are issues that determine the nature of the man to guide the American people at a time when they require a leader more than a politician.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Another Swift Vet on why he was sacked by the Kerry campaign.
    http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/...A-704955.shtml

    "I was personally outraged to go back and review the activities of John Kerry in 1971 and 1972 -- his false testimony to the Senate hearing in April of '71 and his activities with the Winter Soldier campaign and Vietnam Veterans Against the War, particularly that unauthorized trip he took to Paris, having discussions with the Viet Cong representative and the North Vietnamese representative (to theParis peace talks). "All of those things constituted what I consider betrayal, to betray the guys who were still fighting over there, and he certainly betrayed the guys like myself who were in prison.

    "The reason I say that, he willingly of his own free will gave testimony in a hearing spouting the same propaganda and lies that myself and all the POWs who were shot down and captured in the early years -- 1965-1967 -- we were tortured to say essentially the same thing he said in that hearing.

    "The propaganda that was generated by John Kerry and all those guys
    who were working with him ... the propaganda value for the communists was enormous. The proof of that, I would say, is the photograph of him getting a plaque, displayed in the war museum in Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh City).
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    He married two rich women in that time. *hooray for marrying money*
    He is pretty good at finding women to support him, isn't he? In 1970, Kerry married into the family (worth about 300 million) of Julia Thorne. After he left her, he started chasing some Hollywood's wealthiest women. He annulled his marriage when he got enticed by Teresa Heinz's billion dollars.
    At least Heinz was smart enough to make Kerry sign a prenuptial agreement.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Has anyone else noticed the BBC's incredibly biased reporting? The march against Bush was one of the top headlines on the news des[pite the fact it was actually quite a small march, whereas no or very little mention has been given to what Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have been saying against Kerry.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    Has anyone else noticed the BBC's incredibly biased reporting? The march against Bush was one of the top headlines on the news des[pite the fact it was actually quite a small march, whereas no or very little mention has been given to what Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have been saying against Kerry.
    *applause*

    in addition, the fact that these marchers are also substantially from the extreme left, violent and abusive.

    has there been any coverage of the Republican convention?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    *applause*

    in addition, the fact that these marchers are also substantially from the extreme left, violent and abusive.

    has there been any coverage of the Republican convention?
    Some of the marchers were from an organisation that brings anarchists from all over the US together :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Police gave no official crowd estimate. One law enforcement official put the crowd at 125,000 people but organisers said it was more than 500,000, the Associated Press reported.

    Hardly a small march.

    The protest was peaceful. There was a strong police presence, but most were not in riot gear. There were few confrontations.

    Hardly violent lefty's

    Though of course this was taken from the website of the wicked biased BBC
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    Police gave no official crowd estimate. One law enforcement official put the crowd at 125,000 people but organisers said it was more than 500,000, the Associated Press reported.

    Hardly a small march.

    The protest was peaceful. There was a strong police presence, but most were not in riot gear. There were few confrontations.

    Hardly violent lefty's

    Though of course this was taken from the website of the wicked biased BBC
    Organisers always add to the number, it was probably about 200,000.

    Which is 0.07% of the US population (presuming they were all American).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    Organisers always add to the number, it was probably about 200,000.

    Which is 0.07% of the US population (presuming they were all American).
    It's still a significant show of opposition to Bush do you really expect all those who aren't going to vote for Bush to go to New York?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    It's still a significant show of opposition to Bush do you really expect all those who aren't going to vote for Bush to go to New York?
    OK, there's nothing wrong with the march being reporteed, but it was a top story, unlike the anti-Kerry propaganda which, true or not, should be reported by a news service which likes to think of itself as the best in the world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    Police gave no official crowd estimate. One law enforcement official put the crowd at 125,000 people but organisers said it was more than 500,000, the Associated Press reported.

    Hardly a small march.

    The protest was peaceful. There was a strong police presence, but most were not in riot gear. There were few confrontations.

    Hardly violent lefty's

    Though of course this was taken from the website of the wicked biased BBC
    Republicans and those not supporting the anti-Bush riots were subject to horrific verbal abuse, assault and being heckled by gangs of hundreds swearing and throwing objects. Its been all over the US papers.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/31/po...rint&position=


    the population of NY is roughly 20million. its said that 5 to 1 NYorkers are democrat. so you would expect about 16million of them to be against the Republican party and their convention. add to that all of the other democrats from across the US that would be motivated to attend such a rally, against the Republican convention, just months before the election. 200,000 is more big than small?


    i read an article by Rich Lowry last night, who had the pleasure of attending the march. he reiterated what I had come to know.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/...0408300804.asp


    "A kid was holding a sign, "Stop the war on youth, from here to Najaf."
    "So," I asked, "do you support al Sadr?"
    "I do as long as he's resisting U.S. imperialism."
    "OK, so you support Islamic fundamentalism?"
    "No," he said, walking away."
    Well, he's an Islamic fundamentalist," I said.


    "Next, there were the people holding mock American-flag-draped coffins made out of cardboard. I asked a couple of women "pall-bearers" what they symbolized. They said it was an effort put together by an organization called 1,000coffins.org, and the coffins symbolized American and Iraqi deaths in Iraq and "all the dead people in the world."
    "Do any of them symbolize victims of 9/11?" I asked, since they seemed to be casting a pretty wide net.
    "I don't know," said one woman.
    "You'd have to ask 1,000coffins.org," said another.


    Further up the march route was a guy wearing a Yasser Arafat-style headdress and holding a sign reading, "Poland 1939. Iraq 2003."
    "So," I asked him, "you think the invasion of Iraq was the same as Hitler's invasion of Poland?"
    He went into a spiel about how both invasions were launched under false pretenses. I asked if he saw any differences in the natures of the Polish and Iraqi governments. "With any metaphor," he explained, "there are going to be imprecisions."

    ...He had shirts with Condoleezza's name spelled with two Swastikas. "Is Condoleezza a Nazi?" I asked. He thought for a moment: "Condoleezza? Mmmmm. Not so much."
    She is, I guess, only partly a Nazi, which is still enough to render her name in double Swastikas. And so it went at the peace march.



    So, not left, not in the minority, and not violent? hmm.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.