|
|
Thief!
Posted by Stephen Green · 19 October 2004
Hey, I thought the "50 Things" thing was my gig. That aside, John Hawkins has collected 50 reasons John Kerry shouldn't be president.
ANOTHER NOTE: This LNR essay is actually looking pretty good. If it still looks as good in the sober light of morning, I'll try to sell it rather than posting it here for free. ONE MORE NOTE: Hey, you get what you pay for around here. Comments
Send the list to Matt Damon. Just read on Drudge that he would give one million to see Kerry in the White House. Actors? They play a genius in the movies and suddenly they have opinions. Posted by: erp at October 20, 2004 04:58 AMHey, Stephen, maybe you would write even better if you took away the crutch. Posted by: Scott Ferguson at October 20, 2004 05:59 AMI am perpetually confused as to why the pro-Bush/anti-Kerry side feels it can make so much hay over what Kerry said in 1971, as this list attempts to do. In 1971, John Kerry was 27 or 28 years old. So here we have the contrast: at that age, John Kerry was testifying before Congress. At the same age, George W. Bush was an alcoholic. His "irresponsible youth" lasted another 12 years, until he was 40. If we are to judge these men by the same standards, perhaps Kerry comes out looking a little more...presidential? But even if we do not compare testifying before Congress to alcoholism, then perhaps we should still try to apply the same standards, and dismiss whatever Kerry said at that age to his "youth". Then again, September 11 did change the way we must understand the world, as both candidates have admitted. So why does Bush, who prior to 9/11 opposed all the things for which he is now seen as a great leader in the war on terror? Should anything said by either candidate on the topic of foreign policy prior to 9/11 be considered at all in this presidential race? Posted by: Blogtheist at October 20, 2004 06:42 AMBecause he hasn't changed. His global test comment fits in neatly w/what people believe, UN over all. He was pushing 30 when 30 actually meant something. And the answer to your question is yes. Especially since 9/11 didn't affect him and his policies are the failed policies of the 70s and 80s. Do you think the exact same way as you did when you were younger? Posted by: Sandy P at October 20, 2004 07:35 AMHere is other reasons Stephen. A letter from 121 Flag Officers, Retired: To Interested Parties: Senator Kerry has repeatedly voted against military spending and support for troops, but no vote was as egregious as his vote against the troops currently fighting in the War on Terror. In October of 2003, after voting to send troops to war, Senator Kerry was given a chance to vote to support our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq with supplies like body armor and ammunition. He voted no. Just weeks earlier, Senator Kerry said that a no vote on the funding would be "irresponsible" and would amount to a vote to "abandon our troops." And yet, that is exactly what Senator Kerry did. We now know from Senator Biden and from Senator Kerry's own staff that this vote against the troops was cast out of political expediency as a way to stall the momentum of Governor Dean. Senator Kerry voted against troops in combat for his own political benefit. A candidate who sends troops into harm's way and then denies them the supplies they need to do the job cannot lead our nation in the War on Terror. Sincerely, Rear Adm. John Adams, Rear Adm., Donald S. Albright, Jr. Dear Jim, If all these higher ups are concerned- why were our troops sent without these items to begin with. Surely these generals would have known we were going to need the extras prior to sending troops to war. Cant skydive and then remember the chute. Posted by: pete at October 20, 2004 09:40 AMWell Pete, they are all currently retired. Active Officers cannot be associated with political endorsements. I don't know if any were active during the planning of the Iraq War, but keep in mind the details of conflict is rarely closely predicted. That is why the term "The Fog of War" is often used to describe the unknowns. So I guess I am saying that even if they were active at the time, I doubt they would have done much better at war planning. Posted by: Jim R at October 20, 2004 02:15 PM |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"I'm Chris Muir, and I approved this blog."
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
     |
