No, I agree with you there. Bottom line is I see two candidates before us.
One who understands the challenges in the world today and is acting on it,
and one who is just saying anything to get elected.
Crawford? Vacation? I guess you've never been to Crawford. :) I really
don't see a parallel between Kerry missing meetings on national security vs
where Bush gets work done. Voters are looking for someone who can make the
country safer and to make the evaluation you have to look at the resume, not
only at what they say now. Here's a guy who missed most of his meetings on
national security -- not a good thing by any stretch. People make time for
the things they believe are important.
That's the crux of where we differ. I see one big-haired, predictably
political candidate with a somewhat bland agenda, that when taken in
total, generally promises a less dangerous and otherwise better future
for the country. I see another arriving on the national scene purely by
birthright, driven by special interests, utterly helpless and
universally disrespected in the world of diplomacy, environmentally
comatose, and prone to excessive manipulation by advisors with truly
diabolical intentions (but I like his wife and admire his running
His promise for a less dangerous and better future with no apparent plan of
action to get us there somehow seems convincing to you??? What am I missing
here? I mean, what else is he going to say?
Al, this is just all really over the top. Bush has shown he and his admin
are anything but helpless. In fact, he sees his pivotal place in history
and is doing the right thing despite the naysayers who have their own
pecadillos. I think sometimes that Bush is just a sounding board for angry
people to bounce their frustration off of.
OK, first off, the evidence is mounting that the documents purporting to show
that GWB allegedly violated a direct order, are -- forgeries, and clumsy ones
Second, only conduct occurring _during_ one's term of office is impeachable.
Anything that took place prior to that is not.
Third, disobeying a direct order is insubordination, but in no wise can it be
construed as treason. The Constitution is _quite_ clear on what treason
consists of: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in
levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid
and comfort." [Article 3, Section 3]
Finally... it ill-behooves any Kerry supporter to suggest that GWB may be
guilty of treason, when Kerry's conduct after returning home from Viet Nam
approaches far closer to "adhering to [our] enemies, giving them aid and
comfort" than anything that George Bush ever did.
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
war : A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between
nations, states, or parties.
Sounds to me like what happened in Vietnam. Or it isn't a war to you unless
some politicians somewhere say it is?
The Korean War is often, even 'officially' called a 'police action'.
That the Korean War was a police action does not change the fact that
it was a war.
Pennsylvania is a 'Commonwealth'. Someone in Pennsylvania tried to
convince me that the Peannsylvania was not a state because it was
a commonwealth. That the State of Pennsyulvania is a Commonwealth
does not mean it is not a state.
Entrapment my ass. Clinton is physically unable to tell the truth, he
lies habitually and continuously. He alone is responsible for taking an
oath to tell the truth and deciding that, once again, he would lie. That
is nobody's fault but his own.
Long as you don't stain it, we'll get along relatively well.
Yeah. I've often wondered what would have happened if he'd just said
"As long as I'm not screwing children or animals, my sex life is none of
your $#@&! business. And I'm not sure animals should concern you."
But that would be too straightforward for a politician :-).
Witness Rumsfeldt the other day. The interviewer quoted him as saying
something and he denied ever saying it - twice. Then they played the
tape of him saying it - word for word :-). All he had to do was say
"Yes, I said that, but I've since found out I was wrong".
Once again, truth is too simple for a politician.
There ya go. The guy clearly has to go! (But he proved that a long time ago).
Clearly, Clinton should have just said "none of your business". What a
tactical error. But, in extension, if Ken Starr's real motive were to simply
ferret out actual legal violations and such, he shouldn't have asked the
question in the first place, because it, indeed, was none of his business.
But, then, uncovering wrongdoing was never the agenda.
In politics, and most anything to do with lawyers and/or government
bureaucracy, it rarely is ... and that's exactly what we've come to expect
from those quarters.
It is, however, an indictment of the times that the media has become
"proactive" along the same lines, with no end to the blind fools whom they
The reasonable doubts cast upon the authenticity of the documents which CBS
based their latest anti-Bush "agenda" this past Wednesday night are a case
To me this would have been expected and unremarkable coming from the Kerry
machine, or either side for that matter, but from those who foist themselves
off as "journalists" to the American public, it unconscionable, IMO.
I am not a Republican ... I just don't like being taken for a blind fool.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.