The Next Big Thing

Deborah Norville of MSNBC hosted a rollicking discussion with and about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - a transcript should become available here [transcript].

One of her guests was Kate Zernike, a national reporter for the NY Times, who had a byline on "Bush Campaign's Top Outside Lawyer Advised Veterans Group".

Near the conclusion, Ms. Zernike was asked to predict what the next big story would be that would deflect the media from the Swift Boat controversy. Her suggestion - when the US death toll in Iraq reached 1,000, the media would re-focus on that.

Ahh! Presumably, the NY Times is preparing their retrospective right now - how did we get into this mess, is it a quagmire, where did Bush go wrong, and so on.

Since we are now at 966 deaths (which is 966 too many), the Times launch point should be sometime in September. Forewarned is forearmed. Folks looking backward will want copies of Kerry's Senate floor speech from October 2002. The Spinsanity "imminent threat" analysis" will probably be helpful; the Senate Intel report is here; other suggestions are welcomed, natch. (Abu Grahib, "Mission Accomplished"... the capture of Saddam?!?)

But no Iraq retrospective will be complete unless we continue to vex Tall John with the "if you knew then what you know now" question about his vote authorizing war, and the subsequent policy decisions made by Bush - it's been fun so far, and we see that Kerry advisor Jamie Rubin, who briefly got us into the endzone by saying that "in all probability" Kerry would have deposed Saddam, has since recanted. The NY Times, among others, has pummelled Kerry for his puzzling explanations of what he might have done differently.

Or, folks looking forward to see which candidate has the more credible plan for a stable and democratic Iraq will want to dust off these LA Times, AP, and WaPo pieces - all deride Kerry's "plan" for Iraq.

Comments

[brennan stout]

Tom: Kate is the co-author of the article that splashed on the NY Times frontpage last week that said the SBVT were trying to paint "John Kerry the war hero" as "John Kerry the baby-killer".

So far that talking point hasn't been picked up yet.

As for Mr. Rubin's retraction, I don't suppose this would eliminate him from a possible National Security Adviser's position. I suggest they confer with Lewis Lapham to take a ride in his time machine.

[robert0]

Kerry's position on Iraq, if you are looking at things clearmindedly, is a painfully reasonable one.

He would have let the weapons inspectors finish their job. The inpectors would have found that Iraq had no WMD, no chemical or biological weapons nor ties to Al-Qaeda. Therefore, no reason to invade.

Just imagine all those mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers and wives and husbands who would not now be praying for their fallen.

We have gained nothing and lost everything.

[AB]

So this is how the right wing coordinates its grunt troops. OK, guys, our lies on Kerry's Vietnam service worked but soon people will want to talk about real things. Let's make sure there is no substantive discussion on this. Stock up on bullets to throw at Kerry so simpler American types never get the chance to hear the candidates and decide anything for themselves. Hugh Hewitt says our lives depend on not having a real democracy! Get to work and rip the debate into meaningless shreds!

While you're at it do any of you ever ask yourselves why exactly you are so desperate to keep in power an incompetent President who has already presided over arguably the most catastrophic foreign policy failure in US history? The consequences of his incompetence are enormous.

To quote Richard Reeves, the list of this President's misdeeds only starts with these:

"(1) He has divided the country; we are all part of a vicious little hissing match. We were united and humbled on Sept. 12, 2001. We are divided and humiliated now, telling lies about each other.

(2) He has divided the world. "We are all Americans now," headlined Le Monde on that Sept. 12. Now there are days when it seems as if they are all anti-Americans.

(3) He is leaving no child or grandchild without debt. He has taken the government from surplus into deficit in the name of national security and increased private investment. We can pay the debt in two ways: with more government revenues (taxation) or by borrowing -- against the sweat and income of new generations. The president has chosen to borrow.

(4) He campaigns as a champion of smaller government, but is greatly increasing the size and role of government. Ideological conservatism, it turns out, costs just as much or more than ideological liberalism. Conservative and liberal politicians are both for increasing the reach and power of government. The difference between them is which parts and functions of the state are to be empowered and financed. The choice is between military measures and order, or more redistribution of income. Money is power.

(5) He is diminishing the military of which he is so proud now as commander in chief. The invasion and occupation of Iraq (news - web sites) have obviously not worked out the way he imagined -- naked torture was not the goal. But the far greater problem for the future is that our proud commander has revealed the hollowness behind the unilateral superpower. From the top down, we have not been able to win Iraq, much less the world. And going into Iraq has compromised or crippled the war on terror he declared himself.

%2

[AB]

So this is how the right wing coordinates its grunt troops. OK, guys, our lies on Kerry's Vietnam service worked but soon people will want to talk about real things. Let's make sure there is no substantive discussion on this. Stock up on bullets to throw at Kerry so simpler American types never get the chance to hear the candidates and decide anything for themselves. Hugh Hewitt says our lives depend on not having a real democracy! Get to work and rip the debate into meaningless shreds!

While you're at it do any of you ever ask yourselves why exactly you are so desperate to keep in power an incompetent President who has already presided over arguably the most catastrophic foreign policy failure in US history? The consequences of his incompetence are enormous.

To quote Richard Reeves, the list of this President's misdeeds only starts with these:

"(1) He has divided the country; we are all part of a vicious little hissing match. We were united and humbled on Sept. 12, 2001. We are divided and humiliated now, telling lies about each other.

(2) He has divided the world. "We are all Americans now," headlined Le Monde on that Sept. 12. Now there are days when it seems as if they are all anti-Americans.

(3) He is leaving no child or grandchild without debt. He has taken the government from surplus into deficit in the name of national security and increased private investment. We can pay the debt in two ways: with more government revenues (taxation) or by borrowing -- against the sweat and income of new generations. The president has chosen to borrow.

(4) He campaigns as a champion of smaller government, but is greatly increasing the size and role of government. Ideological conservatism, it turns out, costs just as much or more than ideological liberalism. Conservative and liberal politicians are both for increasing the reach and power of government. The difference between them is which parts and functions of the state are to be empowered and financed. The choice is between military measures and order, or more redistribution of income. Money is power.

(5) He is diminishing the military of which he is so proud now as commander in chief. The invasion and occupation of Iraq (news - web sites) have obviously not worked out the way he imagined -- naked torture was not the goal. But the far greater problem for the future is that our proud commander has revealed the hollowness behind the unilateral superpower. From the top down, we have not been able to win Iraq, much less the world. And going into Iraq has compromised or crippled the war on terror he declared himself.

(6) He is diminishing scientific progress, the great engine of the 20th century. Only the truly ignorant can believe that the proper role of government is to hinder medical research and environmental study in the name of God.

(7) He is diminishing the Constitution of the United States. Cheesy tricks like amending the great text of freedom to attack homosexuality can be dismissed as wedge politics. But it is worse to preach against an activist judiciary while appointing more activist judges who happen to hold different beliefs, particularly the idea that civil liberties are the enemies of patriotism, security and freedom itself.

(8) He has surrounded himself with other incompetents. The secretary of state is presiding over the rape of diplomacy and its alliances. The secretary of defense has sent our young men and women into situations they were never meant or trained to handle, and now they are being ordered into battle by an appointed minister in a faraway land. The national security adviser does not seem to know that her job description includes coordinating defense and diplomacy. And then there was our $340,000-a-month local hire, Ahmed Chalabi, sitting in the gallery of our House.

(9) He has been unable or unwilling to deal with declining employment and the rising medical costs of becoming an older nation.

(10) He is, as if by design, destroying the credibility of the United States as a force for peace in the world -- an honest broker -- particularly in the Middle East.

The list is longer, miscalculation after miscalculation. President Bush has not been able to function effectively at this pay grade. He may mean well, but this has been a difficult time, and he is in over his head. We and our kids will pay the price for his blundering, blunderbuss adventure in Washington. He has been tested in a difficult time -- and, unhappily for all of us and the world, he has not been up to the job. "

I am convinced more and more that the "patriotism" of the right wing is one of the most frightening Orwellian phenomenons of modern times.

Why don't you bullies step out of the debate for a change and let honest people hear their future discussed and let them decide for themselves?

[syn]

Two airplanes loaded to the hilt with fuel slammed into civilian buildings in NYC and Washington DC on 9/11 killing 3000 people and devastating the American economy.

Saddam and Al Queda, both declared ememies of America, had established links.

AMERICA WAS ATTACKED BY ISLAMOFASCIST TERRORIST ON 9/11. SADDAM PRAISED THE ATTACKERS.

Sarin and mustard gases have been found in Iraq along with five newly manufactured French Mirages buried in the desert sands.

Multilateral forces are in Iraq and Afghanstian.

The recession began in 1999, as the over-bloated much-hyped ecomonic bubble burst.

France is an ally of Islamofascist Terrorist.

50 million people are now liberated from oppressive and brutal regimes because of our honorable, self-sacrificing military service members and our determined and steday Commander-in-Chief.

Taxes are lowering while government revenue is increasing.

The mililary is strenghten, re-tooled, funds increased after the prior president decimated our military in order to balance the budget.

Hollywood is fiction as is Michael Moore.

George Soros bought, and now controls, the Democratic Party.

The liberally bias, manipulating and propagandizing news "watchtower" are now being exposed by the common person's weblogs for the frauds they, the liberally bias "watchtower", are.

In just three years, Aids funding has increased by $15 BILLION.

Kerry was never in Cambodia and lied about his first Purple Heart. Kerry can't talk about the issues becuased he is a confused man and does not know what are issues.

Freedom of Speech belongs to everyone, most of all the Swift Boat Vets for Truth. The presidential candidate John Kerry is trying to cut the Swift Vets tongues out.

Marxist-progressives are dividing America through subsersive acts.

Judical Courts are over-extending their power.

The United Nations is corrupt.

ISLAMOFASCIST DECLARED WAR UPON AMERICA IN 1998!

An over-whelming number of our military service members support their Commander-in Chief while they abhor the opposing presidential candidate.

AMERICA WAS ATTACKED ON 9/11. THIS UNPROVOKED ATTACK KILLED 3000 INNOCENT LIVES AND DECIMATED OUR ECONOMY.

Children are dumb-down because the Democratic Party platform of keeping people poor, dumb and helpless feels this is an easier approach towards controlling the masses.

AMERICA WAS ATTACKED BY ISLAMOFASCISTS ON 9/11. WE ARE AT WAR.

[AB]

Thank you, syn for an eloquent rundown of skeery ultraconservative paranoia.

It's hard to pick out my favorites from your intense wail of fear and terror, but this one was good:
" Freedom of Speech belongs to everyone, most of all the Swift Boat Vets for Truth."

MOST OF ALL? Of all Americans in this gigantic country, the Swift Boat Vets for "Truth" have the MOST right to freedom of speech? They have the right to hijack our national election for President, our equal Constitutional right as Americans, because their 250 personal opinions about who should or should not be President trumps everyone else's? It is absolutely insane that with the dire situation our country is facing, economically and internationally, we are even allowing these anti-patriotic knotheads to continue to foul our airwaves for another day.

Whenever I hear people screaming about ISLAMOFASCISTS, it reminds me of how many people in this country find militarism and war a most enjoyable armchair hobby. The idea that we can only be safe by unleashing our dogs of war upon those who hate us sounds like a Mad Max movie more than the reality of the global situation we are facing here in real time.

Everyone knows we are in desperate straits. Yes, we had a terrorist attack on our soil. But in response, an incompetent President has bought us a short term sensation of security while silmultaneously exposing us to far graver long term dangers.

I think, reading syn's post, that the real reason we are so divided in this country is that some people feel we are facing such an imminent physical threat to our survival that we must rely entirely on the judgment of the President, even if he bungles every challenge he faces in a way that puts us furher into debt and more exposed to violence than ever. Others think that, just like humanity has always faced, we are facing a powerful, new threat - which requires that our best minds and most responsible, capable leaders work together without personal motivations, and with checks and balances to protect against individual disasters.

So the debate is going to be very long, whatever the outcome of the election. It's the oldest political argument in history, between those who crave the comfort of a monarchy/dictatorship and those who embrace the responsiblity of representative democracy. As Hugh Hewitt has explained, you cannot allow the opposition to speak for itself, otherwise the masses might start to think for themselves.

[Slartibartfast]

Moral of the story: when you have a long, rambling, incoherent, paranoiac comment, it's best to post it twice. Because you never know when the evil Right Wing Nazis are going to delete your comment.

[Appalled Moderate]

You know, that darn liberal news media is just awful, insisting on reporting current events, rather than drudging around in Kerry's past. I am sure glad that someone is trying to bring clarity to the fog of Kerry's four months in Vietnam; just as I was overjoyed to see the news media try desperately to figure out W's Alabama National Guard service.

You know, I like a good mystery novel like everyone else. But I prefer that discussion of important stuff like Iraq and Al Qaeda (anyone remember them) dominate over this kind of silliness. I agree Kerry, by trying to be Mr. Vet has brought some of this on himself. But relly, people. Do we want this election decided on a four month tour in Vietnam?

[Slartibartfast]

What AB says is said much more exhaustively (yet precisely) here.

[AB]

Slartibartfast, Syn did not post his long, rambling, incoherent, paranoiac comment twice. My previous post copied 1 1/2 times, but that's some kind of problem with the interface on your site. It happens frequently here.

I think another of Syn's proverbs are useful to reread: This sentence "Children are dumb-down because the Democratic Party platform of keeping people poor, dumb and helpless feels this is an easier approach towards controlling the masses. " makes me wonder if some children "are dumb-down" because their parents really don't respect the principle of intelligent reasoning as an approach to solving problems. I think Arab societys are a perfect example of what happens when a culture respects ONLY the most masculine response to life, i.e. kill before you are killed, as it's primary virtue. That must never happen here.

But to your last point, I do commend this site on one BIG thing. You are the only right wing site I've found that doesn't immediately delete and ban an opposing thinker at the very first post. You have let me keep speaking here, and I do give credit for that. It's very commendable of you.

[capt joe]

Monique (AB) always posts twice. ;)

[Joanna]

>We have gained nothing and lost everything.

Y'know Roberto, one thing the Dems are going to HAVE to do in their post-election soul searching, (where did we go wrong?), is realize that they just have to stop exaggerating. Like before the Iraq war, the many dire predictions that MILLIONS were going to die.

"Gained nothing and lost everything" is hyperbolic to the same degree. And as long as the Dems keep up with that kind of nonsense, it lessens their chances of getting elected. Why? Because most Americans have internal BS detectors.

[GT]

What about the October Iraqui Tet Offensive by the Sunnis that George Will has mentioned?

Or a combo of the low GDP number out today and bad job numbers (if they happen) next week?

[Stephen]

"Since we are now at 966 deaths (which is 966 too many) ...."

I guess it's not politically correct to say something like this, but 966 deaths is ridiculously small, about an order of magnitude less than what it took to take an atoll in WWII. About 2% of the traffic deaths in the U.S. in a year. And with this tiny number of deaths we overthrew two nations and administered them for a year or two.

I think we are still way too squeamish about this subject. Another example: Why for god's sake do we shut down the shuttle program for a year or two every time someone dies? It's a dangerous job. If the astronauts doing it don't want to risk it, find others.

[Pouncer]

Robert0: [Kerry] would have let the weapons inspectors finish their job. The inpectors would have found that Iraq had no WMD, no chemical or biological weapons nor ties to Al-Qaeda."

Weeeelllll, maybe if there were ten times the number of inspectors, heavily armed, allowed to talk with officials suspected of working on WMD programs and military officers in charge of such weapons without Saddams "minders" in the room -- in short, if Hans Blix had gotten the support he wanted, the the inspectors might have found:

-- Long range missiles,
-- prototype UAVs
-- mustard gas filled artillery shells
-- enough dual-use "insecticide" factory capacity to supply all of Africa.
-- dozens of mass graves of thousands of political prisoners ...
-- documenation linking officials in Saddam's intelligence services with terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and (uhm, yes, I think so) Al-Quaida.

In short, if the inspections had found what the occupation forces found, they would have found no stockpiles of WMD. Either. But they WOULD have found violations of UN Resolutions. In particular, the inspectors would have found that Saddam had consistant intent to conceal his crimes, past and still-planned.

Would President Kerry (or Gore) have gone to war to enforce the Clinton-era U.S. policy of "regime-change" in Iraq if UN inspections had "worked"?

If not, why not? Why would a Democratic president in 2000-2004 _NOT_ carry forward a bi-partisen policy set by Congress and signed by a president with high public approval ratings (presumably therefore reflecting the will of the American people) in support of a UN resolution as dictated by the best available evidence (gathered by Hans Blix)?

Let's stipulate that such a president is not cowardly, squeamish, stupid, or unpatriotic. There are undoubtedly good reasons a Democratic president might have used NOT to go to war.

But it's not my place to list such reasons. I'd rather here it from Robert0.

Therefore, no reason to invade.

[ed]

Hmmm.

@Robert0: "He would have let the weapons inspectors finish their job. The inpectors would have found that Iraq had no WMD, no chemical or biological weapons nor ties to Al-Qaeda. Therefore, no reason to invade."

Except for one fairly important problem. Saddam wasn't letting any inspectors back into Iraq unless they were under Saddam's control. Which made them worse than useless since nobody could be assured that anything they reported was the truth.

2. @AB: "To quote Richard Reeves, the list of this President's misdeeds only starts with these:"

Because Richard Reeves is such a neutral pundit. Right. Reeves is a hard leftist and I wouldn't trust anything he had to say.

3. @AB: "While you're at it do any of you ever ask yourselves why exactly you are so desperate to keep in power an incompetent President"

Why don't you explain why you're so desperate to get into power a guy so completely incompetent as Kerry? Seriously now. What Whack-A-Mole thought that the single best platform to run a campaign on was THE most divisive war in the history of America? And that it would be appropriate for THE most divisive anti-war activist that most veterans absolutely hate?

That's a level of stupidity that demonstrates a clear lack of ability on the part of Senator Kerry.

4. @AB: "We were united and humbled on Sept. 12, 2001."

YOU were humbled. Not me. I was pissed off.

5. @AB: ""We are all Americans now," headlined Le Monde on that Sept. 12. Now there are days when it seems as if they are all anti-Americans."

No shit Sherlock. Le Monde, like ALL French news media, is/was/always-will-be rabidly anti-American. In case you've been taking a 60 year nap, quite a bit of Europe has been anti-American for decades.

Otherwise why would Le Monde post the headline "We are all Americans now"? Because they treated us like shit and still do today. And they, and YOU, claim it's America's fault? Not then, not now. This is partially why I'm looking forward to the time when Europe comes begging for American military help. It'll be then when I push like mad to let them die. I've got a bottle of excellent French brandy for the day when Paris burns.

6. @AB: "He is leaving no child or grandchild without debt."

Yeah that's important to the DNC. The same DNC that gave us the $7 trillion welfare from LBJ's Presidency. It's funny how demcrats think that people have no memories. I know I certainly remember when democrats couldn't give a rat's ass about spending limits. So I'm extremely amused by the sudden fiscal responsibility that supposedly permeates the DNC.

7. @AB: "The choice is between military measures and order, or more redistribution of income. Money is power."

What the hell are you talking about? Do I have to remind you that we're fighting a **WAR**? That increasing the military's budget is a bit more important now?

8. @AB: "He is diminishing the military of which he is so proud now as commander in chief."

Which is why each branch of the military has met and exceeded their retention goals and are retaining about 85%? That today's military is *stronger* than it was under Clinton? It was Clinton that reduced the Army from 18 divisions to 10. It was Clinton that reduced the Navy from 600+ ships to around 350. It was Clinton that reduced the Air Force by 4 fighter wings.

And Bush has weakened the military? Bullshit.

America has the most powerful military not only because of it's weapons, but also because of that military's level of experience.

9. @AB: "He is diminishing the Constitution of the United States. Cheesy tricks like amending the great text of freedom to attack homosexuality can be dismissed as wedge politics. But it is worse to preach against an activist judiciary while appointing more activist judges who happen to hold different beliefs, particularly the idea that civil liberties are the enemies of patriotism, security and freedom itself."

Now that's completely fully of bullshit. Gay politics is NOT in the Consitution. Not now, not ever. What should have been done is either laws at the state level or a Constitutional Amendment to incorporate those ideals. But that never happened did it?

The simple fact is that liberals prefer using activist judges to manipulate America because they don't believe in Democracy. Instead they want to force their opinions down the throat of every American. As for conservative judges, most are strict Constitutionalists who don't see rights that don't exist.

Isn't it interesting that Abortion, Roe vs. Wade, has only been subject to vote of 9 people? In a democratic country of 300 million people only 9 got the right to vote on that issue. That's your idea of *democracy*?

Not mine.

I'll let you chew on that for now. I'll finish replying later on.

[Slartibartfast]

but that's some kind of problem with the interface on your site.

Funny, no one's complained about my site interface before. And certainly, I'd not expect complaints about my site to surface here. Thanks for the compliments, but as I hinted at, this is not my site.

[Paul Zrimsek]

AB deserves a bit of credit for his vivid illustration of the dangers of metaphor abuse. Once you've convinced yourself that the arguments used by Kerry's opponents are not arguments but bullets that they're throwing(?) at him, you're well on the way to convincing yourself that those arguments are a way of stopping the debate rather than a way of conducting it. And the next thing you know, you've convinced yourself that they way to have a debate is for one side of it to shut up.

[Jim Glass]

"[Kerry] would have let the weapons inspectors finish their job. The inpectors would have found that Iraq had no WMD, no chemical or biological weapons nor ties to Al-Qaeda."
~~~~

What Pouncer said about N. Korean missiles on order, etc., ... PLUS Kerry would have had the intelligence services of Britain, France, Germany, Italy et. al., and Bill Clinton's former intelligence staff, unanimously telling him Saddam still had the WMDs and had hidden them ... *plus* the government heads of Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab nations who knew Saddam the best personally telling him the same thing, as General Franks just related.

So I *love* this new line from Kerry/Edwards:

"We'd have been just as tough as Bush, every bit as tough, but we'd have known more!"

How???

"My ouiji board and his crystal ball would have told us that all the intelligence services of the world plus the leaders of all the Arab governments were wrong. That's how!"

[Brennan Stout]

Let's not kid ourselves. If Gore were President he would have gone to war to enforce the Clinton policy of regime change. Who just recently joined NATO? Oh right, Turkey just joined NATO. And we know how Gore defends unilateral war - the NATO charter.

[GT]

Jim,

Maybe by asking questions?

[Easycure]

http://icasualties.org/oif/Stats.aspx shows the number of U.S. deaths at 971. Of that total, 244 (25.1%) were non-combat related. This website has consistantly been the best source for casualty info.

Considering we liberated a whole country, the casualty rate is very low, and morale of the military is very high. You should ask them, because current media as it is only wants to hear stories of how bad things are.

[Cecil Turner]

"Therefore, no reason to invade."

Well, I think it's a silly position, but at least it's a position. Which is far preferable to trying to figure out what the candidate meant when he said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority." Or pointed to Max Cleland (whose proficiency in martial matters is hardly an inspiration) and said: "We may be a little older now, we may be a little grayer, but we still know how to fight for our country." Or, everyone's favorite: "I voted for it before I voted against it."

[Paul Zrimsek]

Cecil, you left out "You bet we might have."

[Paul Zrimsek]

Cecil, you left out "You bet we might have."

[Paul Zrimsek]

Cecil, you left out the evergreen "You bet we might."

[AB]

Paul Zrimsek, I think you just posted twice . Or maybe three times.

I love the puffy rantings of militaristic white middle aged men. It's so nice of them to want the keep all the rest of us so safe when they hate our guts so much.

The beauty of America is that it can never be controlled by one omnipotent portion of its population. This has stymied, frustrated and led to more heart attacks amongst white middle aged males than even football games have.

But luckily, this system is for all of us. And if you think the rest of this country falls into some kind of conservative, timid, submissive mindset just because Karl Rove did his usual bowel movement on the American public, you'd better hang on to your ten gallon hats. Look behind you, aging Viagra addicted white guys, you're not the majority any more.

If the Democrats were the wimps you keep claiming they are, then you wouldn't be in the fight for your lives that you're in right now.

One of the most amusing lists on the political blogs I've seen is the comparison of Democrats and Republicans in the House, Congress & White House as to which have served in the armed forces and which have not. Funny how the Democrats outnumber Repubs about 4 to 1 on that. The reason Kerry made his service an issue is because, unlike most of the cowardly cabal of neocons running the country right now, he knows what war really is. And strangely enough, even in these polls touting his imminent defeat, 42% of vets agree with him. Not 4% or 2%. 42%. It's not a majority, but it's a hell of a lot of guys. Presumably it's the ones that still have both their brains and their hearts intact, and that don't subscribe to magazines like MERCENARY SOLDIERS.

[JonVT]

In this post-9/11 election your choice for President should come down to two steps:

A) Who does OBL want to win the election?

B) Vote for the other guy.

[Cecil Turner]

"Cecil, you left out 'You bet we might have.'"

Where was my head?

"I love the puffy rantings of militaristic white middle aged men."

Me too. It's particularly unattractive when they're trying to use their self-inflated experiences to get elected to public office.

[monkeyboy]

"He would have let the weapons inspectors finish their job. The inpectors would have found that Iraq had no WMD, no chemical or biological weapons nor ties to Al-Qaeda. Therefore, no reason to invade."

Therefore, there would be no reason to keep the sanctions on Iraq. No doubt there would have been intense pressure from France, Germany, and Russia to lift them and start trading above board. That leaves us to face an empowered, rearmed and enriched Saddam in the future.

Nice, I'll take the current situation with him in a cell and Itaqis free thanks.

[Jim Glass]

"Maybe by asking questions?"

OK, exactly what questions would Kerry ask of the intelligence staffs of Clinton, and all the western nations that have them, plus the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, etc., to get them all to slap their heads and say "Gee, now we realize we were all wrong -- Saddam actually has gotten rid of all his bad stuff and is *hiding* that fact from us! (And imagine, to make us all realize this took a Democrat even smarter than Bill Clinton!)"

Some questions those would be! And he'd have to ask them in only a very limited amount of time, because the only reason the inspectors are back in there at all is because US troops are massing on the border, and they can stay there for only a limited abount of time. So those quesions would have to work pretty fast.

But, hey, never mind that -- let's give Kerry true foresight, a ouiji board and crystal ball that really work! So he gets to make his decision *then* knowing all that we know *now*.

Knowing what we know now, Tommy Franks says it was *right* to go in after the WMDs because...

"While we may not have found actual WMD stockpiles, what the Coalition discovered was the equivalent of a disassembled pistol, lying on a table beside neatly arranged trays of bullets."

OK, so Kerry figures back then with magical foresight what today seems the most likely true life scenario:

Saddam, whose willingness to use poison gas and such and whose larger ambitions are amply documented in the record, knows that if he gets actually caught with stockpiles he'll be screwed. So he disassembles the stockiles. But that is of no matter to him, because the stockpiles of poison gas have a short useful life and he can't use them in the near term anyhow.

He then continues his campaign to get sanctions lifted and to have the inspectors go away -- they are back in there *only* because US troops are on the border, and they can stay there for only a limited amount of time. He figures: if no stockpiles are found Kerry will have no excuse to invade so he won't. Then in a year or so the troops and inspectors will go away.

In the meantime he keeps his N. Korean missiles on order, planning to be able to use them later to deliver -- what?? And when the US troops and inspectors are gone, and he can happily rebuild his stockpiles having gamed the international community. (Hey, quite likely sanctions will be coming off too, since the children of Iraq somehow aren't getting nearly enough food through the "oil for food program", due to the nasty vengeful US, and the progressive international community is growing appalled at this.)

Also in the meantime Saddam has never said he's given up his WMD and accounted for doing so -- in spite of endless UN demands -- because, well, frankly, he never intends to give up the ability to use WMDs and wants to keep the "prestige" and influence that comes in the domestic and international arenas from being seen to be willing and able to use such.

So what does Kerry do now? He has a limited time to launch an invasion or not. He can't keep the troops on the border forever. If he goes in he knows he won't find stockpiles. If he doesn't go in, Saddam will be able to "re-assemble the pistol and trays of nicely lined up bullets" whenever he wants, and it will be too late to do anything about it then.

Kerry's ouiji board and crystal ball don't see ahead any farther than that.

What's he do?

[Brennan Stout]

I was looking forward to my middle aged heart attack, but after reading AB I am not so sure. I ought to be a good middle aged white male like Paul Begala, James Carville or Wes Boyd and vote Democrat. This species doesn't have heart attacks.

[Jim Glass]

"If the Democrats were the wimps you keep claiming they are, then you wouldn't be in the fight for your lives that you're in right now."

What, if Kerry wins the Democrats are going to start ending the lives of Repubs?

Seems unlikely, considering how the Repubs are solid favorites to retain the Senate and look to have a lock on the House for the next generation -- the latter very arguably being Bill Clinton's greatest political achievement, considering the lock the Dems thought they had on it when he came in.

(Was it only 1992 when the Dems had the White House and solid majorities in the Senate and House too? What hath Bill Clinton, "the greatest Democratic politician since FDR" wrought? But I digress...)

"The reason Kerry made his service an issue is because..." of a cynical (and, as it is coming to appear, perhaps dimwitted) calculation that if he markets himself as a clone of Dubya on defense the left will stay with him holding its nose, while enough centrists who "don't like" Dubya will vote for him to win.

It didn't occur to him that maybe people wouldn't like *him* (see this review of Kerry on the Daily Show by a Kerry supporter http://www.slate.com/id/2105618/ ) ... and that his becoming the anti-war pro-warrior wouldn't help on that point that any.

"And strangely enough, even in these polls touting his imminent defeat, 42% of vets agree with him."

And if he gets that same 42% support from the public on election day that he gets from the Vets on his military record, what a success that will be!

[Paul Zrimsek]

I for one do not miss the days when middle-aged white guys were the majority. Those of you out there who haven't yet succumbed to football-induced heart attacks may remember how they used to grow us in vats so that everyone would be born middle-aged and the younger guys wouldn't outnumber us. Plus now we have Thai restaurants and women and Democrats and all that. I never want to go back.

[AB]

Jim, you have the Republican talent for entirely missing the point.

What kind of civil war do you think is going to break out if Kerry wins? Will all those assault weapons that are so important to Conservative voters be put to use in our streets?

I know what will happen if Bush wins. Basically stalemate in Congress and constant inquiries into the unsavory elements of his administration. Rumsfeld and Abu Ghraib. Cheney and Halliburton. DeLay and take your pick. Libby's toast. Bush wil be hamstrung from day one. No more doctored intelligence. And he won't be getting any more blank checks to invade any more countries either. Basically the old warhorses' wet dream is over. Which is going to be a problem what with Iran and Korea ramping up both their anti Americaniism and their nuclear weapons programs, and most of the rest of the world not really giving a shit what happens to us. The poor and middle class will have to suffer through four more years of misery, but that will only lead to the kind of social discontent that will inevitably start the pendulum swinging back the other way. I noticed the poverty figures today, and couldn't help seeing that the Red States are disproportionately poverty stricken. Should be fun times for Mr. Cowboy and his crew, but couldn't happen to nicer guys.

We'll see. I'm sure in the convention Bush will be trying to put enough coherent sentences together to convince American moms and dads that he's all about the apple pie and little league games. The question is do enough Americans still believe they will be able to pay their bills after letting this guy wreak four more years of havoc on the economy and are they absolutely certain that this brilliant Commander in Chief is not going to be knocking on their very own doors to draft their very own boys and girls in the glorious "spread of liberty" throughout the world.

I mean, as Bush's lifestory has shown us, there is a difference between believing in war and actually going in to fight one.

[Les Nessman]

ApalledModerate-
"You know, that darn liberal news media is just awful, insisting on reporting current events, rather than drudging around in Kerry's past."

Bwahahaha! Ol' 'one-note-Kerry' made his Vietnam service the central and only theme of his campaign, and now the Kerry supporters are whining that people are actually looking into his past.

Kerry was running on his supposed 'Vietnam War Hero' status MONTHS before the Dem convention.

[AB]

Conservatives find this hard to understand but Kerry supporters are voting for him for POSITIVE reasons. I think that's hard to understand because the Conservative viewpoint is so negative.

Conservative philosophy seems to me to be:
a. The rest of the world is after us, so all you sissies go stand in the closet while we manly men blow stuff up, and
b. Anyone who wants rich people to pay any of the costs of war are SOCIALISTS!!!

I think that's about it.

On the other hand, I beieve people who are voting Democrat are doing it for the following reasons;
1. We believe Democrats historically do a better job of managing the economy in a way that both fulfills the governments commitments to its citizens and holds down the deficit. (Witness the Nobel Prize winners for Economics endorsing Kerry.)
2. We believe that the administration policy of war is making us less safe by increasing hatred of Americans, by overextending our military resources and by exposing the limits of American military power. (Witness the endorsements by retired generals and diplomats.)
3. We believe that HOPE in the future, in scientific progress and development, is a better way to approach our problems than FEAR of the boogeyman.
4. We believe that the richest Americans, who benefit from our system of business so disproportionately, should be required to sacrifice for our freedom on a level equivalent to that of the working classes.

The Republican message is unremittingly negative and filled with fear. It relies on the propagation of fear and helplessness among the citizens, on a fearful reliance on a strong cocksure leader. It always looks to the past for models of how to deal with the future.

This is a democracy and we will all be able to vote as we see fit. Let's just hope it is fairly done and there are no more elections decided by Governor-brothers and Supreme Court justices.

[GT]

What questions Jim?

How about when the inspectors were in the ground and they went to the sites that supposedly had WMDs and found nothing asking the CIA, "Huh guys? You sure about this slam dunk thing? Why aren't they finding anything?"

You know, just to start?

[Pouncer]

"I know what will happen if Bush wins. "

Be sure and lend the next president that crystal ball, supercomputer, quija board, or whatever it is that gives you such certainty.

If Kerry wins, and if Kerry was correct in his predictions of 1971, two and a half million VietNam veterans -- trained to kill, a monster of LBJ's making -- will rise up in rebellion.

Or maybe only 42% of them. Lesseee... 42% of 2.5 is, uhm, oh, call it a million even. Trained baby killer, mother rapers, father stabbers, FATHER-RAPERS! One Million Father-rapers, right there on the bench ...

Er. Sorry. Flashback.

Okay, so if Kerry wins and Kerry was INCORRECT in 1971 about the impact on American political stability of the Vietnam war, then we might be okay.

So. Kerry wins. The current motley collection of bought, bribed, coerced and bullied nations (that Shrub collected from E-Bay...) heaves a huge sigh of relief, slips the leash, packs up their troops and pulls out of Iraq on 21 January, 2005. This, confirming President Kerry's claim that the US has acted "unilaterally" and leading to the promised situation in which President Kerry belly crawls to the UN and/or the French Embassy to apologize, make friends, and get our "traditional allies" to help us out in Iraq. (or maybe this takes place on the SECOND day of President Kerry's term. I'm working withOUT my own crystal ball here...)

What do you suppose they'll say?

So President Kerry sets a firm date for withdrawal from Iraq. After all, if we're leaving anyway, the people who don't want us there have no reason to keep attacking, right?

Shortly afterwards Iraq falls apart and thousands of Kurdish refugees head for Turkey, Shia refugees head for Iran, (or maybe those are the Sunnis?) Coptic refugees head for ... well, I dunno. All those dark skinned ragheads look alike to me. But Kerry will know.

Anyhow, we'll have Syria Iran Lebanon Turkey and what not all reenacting the roles formerly played by Cambodia and Laos back when, only THIS time, there'll be little nuke-holding Israel sitting right in the middle of it all; and a President in the US with only two accomplishments to his credit: Ending the Vietnam War, and bringing the troops home from Iraq.

How likely is it that President Kerry will, once disengaged from Iraq, send military peacekeeping assistance to Turkey, Israel, Egypt, or other "historical traditional longterm allies" of the United States?

I forget, does Turkey, specifically, have any of the nukes once shared with NATO, generally?

I mean, I don't know much about this stuff, honestly. But what I _do_ know scares me silly. And the more I learn about John Kerry's record on Vietnam, his record on the problem of refugees, his record on unilateral renunciation of using nuclear weapons, etc etc ... well, the sillier I get.

Scared, I mean.

On the other hand, if President Kerry (or Shrub, whichever) decides to keep 30 or 100 thousand troops in the middle of it all, like we did between the Koreas, along the European Iron Curtain, or the straits of Taiwan, then I suspect that things would go more calmly. Not perfectly, I suppose. Scary stuff happens. But in places the past century where the US has been openly involved (letting aside all that covert secret stuff in South America...) things go better than otherwise. Where the US has either pulled back, or tried to act in secret, things go badly.

So, I ask myself, which candidate is more ready to stay a decade, or two, or "as long as it takes" ?

Well, so far, only one has made that official policy ...

[Paul Zrimsek]

Kerry is in particular need of that crytal ball and Ouija board since he's refused to say what'd do in Iraq if elected on the ground that he doesn't know what's going to be happening there come January.

[Pouncer]

"Conservative philosophy seems to me to be:
a. The rest of the world is after us, so all you sissies go stand in the closet while we manly men blow stuff up, "

Exactly right. The rest of the world is after us, lagging behind the US in human rights, in job creation, in developing new medicine, in movie making, and (126 other categories omitted) and in ways of blowing stuff up. Therefore, we must be in general doing something correctly while they seem to be doing something, er, backwards.

"and
b. Anyone who wants rich people to pay any of the costs of war are SOCIALISTS!!!"

Partly right. The philosophy is that socialism in general (either the international "historically inevitable" version, or the more localized "national socialism" model) is a backward and failed approach to the problems of securing human rights, job creation, health care ...

So, while being somewhat uncertain and willing to disagree among ourselves about the proper way to pay for a war, we -- philosophically -- rule out imposing socialist "solutions" such as rationing, nationalization of industries, confiscatory taxes, etc.

"I think that's about it."

And I compliment you on the grasp you show of an unfamiliar way of thought.

So, can you similarly summarize liberal philosophy?

[Appalled Moderate]

Les:

Glad to see you're one of those who doesn't see the need to read the entire post before commenting. Or you would have seen:

"I agree Kerry, by trying to be Mr. Vet has brought some of this on himself."

But the way this has become THE ISSUE of August has got to be a bit disturbing. Because the fate of the Republic does not rest on whether Kerry earned that first Purple Heart or not -- just as it does not rest on whether W ducked out early on his National Guard training. It may rest on how the candidates deal with Iraq, Iran, balooning deficits, permanently higher oil prices and the increasingly pissed-off rest of the world. Feel free to snicker at Kerry, who sometimes acts like he's Sgt York or Audie Murphy. But don't base your vote either on his war record, or your perceived disdain for his war record.

[Slartibartfast]

FATHER-RAPERS!

I hope I'm not the only one who got that. Then again, I hope for all of your sakes that I am.

I also think that AB could conserve on both energy and saliva by simply cutting and pasting from the master template.

[Frank IBC]

Monique AB:

I made the mistake of reading your post from bottom to top - it seemed almost coherent, at first I thought the others had mis-identified you, but then I saw it was from another source.

He has been unable or unwilling to deal with...the rising medical costs of becoming an older nation.

Yes, a 228-year-old nation tends to have increasing medical needs...

[Frank IBC]

The fate of the Republic does not rest on whether Kerry earned that first Purple Heart or not -- just as it does not rest on whether W ducked out early on his National Guard training. It may rest on how the candidates deal with Iraq, Iran, balooning deficits, permanently higher oil prices and the increasingly pissed-off rest of the world. Feel free to snicker at Kerry, who sometimes acts like he's Sgt York or Audie Murphy. But don't base your vote either on his war record, or your perceived disdain for his war record.

Just one problem with this nice little scenario - it was Kerry himself who made his service in Vietnam the central, if not the only, issue in his campaign. And he has made zero attempts to clearly define his policies on absolutely every other issue.

And now that much of his supposed service in Vietnam has been revealed to have been a self-serving fabrication, it is clear that he does not have the CHARACTER to serve as President.

[Paul Zrimsek]

I don't think we need to trouble ourselves too much about who got the reference, Slart: nobody wants to hear about a middle-aged white guy like Arlo anyway.

I've been hearing a lot of arguments lately of the form "We're going to win because it's obvious to everyone that your guys are a bunch of father-rapers." They need to be, but never are, accompanied by some sort of explanation of either (a) how our guys suddenly became father-rapers between the 2002 elections and today, or (b) why so many people voted for our guys in that election, and earlier, despite their being obvious father-rapers.

[Frank IBC]

AB/Monique -

We believe that the richest Americans, who benefit from our system of business so disproportionately, should be required to sacrifice for our freedom on a level equivalent to that of the working classes.

I gather that you think the rich just take, take, and take some more, but contribute absolutely nothing to the economy?

No rich people = no employers = no private sector jobs = utter poverty and misery.

Why don't you get back to me when you've actually hired a few people yourself.

Idiot.

[Slartibartfast]

Don't you see, Paul? It's because the father-rapers cheated.

[Appalled Moderate]

Frank IBC:

So...are you against Kerry because he doesn't have clearly defined policies, or because of the swift vet charges?

If it's the former, have at Kerry on his waffles and accomplishment challenged senate record. But if you think Vietnam is important, then, as a matter of intellectual honesty, you have to consider the Vietnam avoidance records of Bush, Cheney, and other GOP worthies.

My own position is consistant -- this nonsense is not important, and the character of a man at 20-25 is different (it may be better or worse) than the man at 50-55. For that reason, I find Kerry's posturing aboput his past rediculous, and the efforts of those to blacken it a waste of a lot of good donations.

[Appalled Moderate]

Frank IBC:

So...are you against Kerry because he doesn't have clearly defined policies, or because of the swift vet charges?

If it's the former, have at Kerry on his waffles and accomplishment challenged senate record. But if you think Vietnam is important, then, as a matter of intellectual honesty, you have to consider the Vietnam avoidance records of Bush, Cheney, and other GOP worthies.

My own position is consistant -- this nonsense is not important, and the character of a man at 20-25 is different (it may be better or worse) than the man at 50-55. For that reason, I find Kerry's posturing aboput his past rediculous, and the efforts of those to blacken it a waste of a lot of good donations.

[Appalled Moderate]

sorry about double post.

[Frank IBC]

But if you think Vietnam is important, then, as a matter of intellectual honesty, you have to consider the Vietnam avoidance records of Bush, Cheney, and other GOP worthies.

I don't care which war Kerry was in - Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, the War on Drugs, or even the War on Poverty - the fact that he has made what has been revealed to be a blatant fabrication, the absolute CENTERPIECE of his campaign.

Bush, Cheney etc. are irrelevant to this discussion as they never blatantly fabricated their records as Kerry has.

The issue here is NOT VIETNAM - IT IS BLATANT LYING ON ONE'S RESUME - an issue involving the candidates's fundamental character and integrity.

So...are you against Kerry because he doesn't have clearly defined policies, or because of the swift vet charges?

Both! Does that confuse you?

[Frank IBC]

Appalled Moderate -

There is nothing unusual about getting deferments - Kerry himself got a few deferments prior to going overseas. In fact, virtually all college students at the time of the Vietnam war got them.

If you can show me that there was any improper activity involved in Bush's or Kerry's obtaining their deferments, I will re-consider my position. If not...

[Frank IBC]

Sorry, that should have been "Bush and CHENEY'S' deferments".

And I should note that although Kerry also got several deferments, I have no issue with these.

[Frank IBC]

Q: Why did the Moderate cross the road?

A: To get to the middle.

:)

[AB]

Oh, Frank, I'm well aware of the fact that the richest Americans feel like heroes only slightly less magnificent than Jesus Christ for all the good they do for society by way of employing us lowly worthless beings.

Tell me this:

How the fuck are they going to stay rich if they don't have workers to do the work and consumers to buy their output?

This is a symbiotic system, idiot. The fact that so many of the richest Americans now make money off of wealth rather than their own labor has created a society where the internal stresses are beginning to increase. I'm really tired of fatcat assholes lecturing the rest of us on how this system is the best, and the only, and the most holy economic system that ever existed. They seem absolutely panic stricken at the thought of allowing any intellectual investigation into ways that an economic system can be restructured to spread more of the benefits to more of the hardworking and hopefully hardbuying citizens.

As usual, Conservatives are only capable of thinking within precreated boxes. There are only two economic systems - socialist and capitalist. There is no other way to organize society to maximize the good for all while stimulating the best from each. It's impossible. Stop thinking about it. This is the deal: You work. We make money. The end. And when we decide you should go to war, just trust us. We always know best, and if anything goes wrong, we'll make sure you bear the burden.

But here's the thing: There's more of us than there are of you. A lot more. Especially since Bush became President.

As for Kerry's record being ':blatantly fraudulent" you REALLY need to check out the dreaded MSM once in a while. The Swiftvets have been discredited so deeply, so thoroughly that they're lucky they haven't been sued yet. It is beginning to dawn on the American public that John Kerry actually got his ass shot at on multiple occasions, and he actually did quite a few brave acts, including testifying against the most reprehensible and meaningless war in our history. Not everyone sees it like you Frank. Many incredibly fine Vets find the acts of the Swiftboat vets far more shameful than anything they've said about John Kerry. Believe it or not, not every vet is a bitter asshole. And every time Kerry's time in Vietnam gets mentioned, don't you believe for a second people don't have an instant of remembering that his opponent jumped ahead of thousands to save his bowlegged little butt.

[Frank IBC]

Yep, it's Monique alright.

[Pouncer]

"the most reprehensible and meaningless war in our history. "

I didn't realize John Kerry had testified against the Spanish American War ... cooked up by rich fat cat MSM mogul William Randolph Hurst ("Remember the MAINE!") in order to sell newspapers.

Still, it's good to know that by whatever metric of reprehensibility and meaninglessness by which wars should be evaluated the present conflict against terrorism is not extreme...

[Slartibartfast]

Better wipe the chin, AB.

[Pouncer]

"There's more of us than there are of you."

That's the argument the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth make against Kerry's Band of Brothers.

[Frank IBC]

Didn't you learn in Catholic school that Anger is one of the Seven Deadly Sins?

[AB]

We're not talking about taking public dumps into the media, Pouncer. We're talking about votes. The main thing these guys have exposed to the general public is the dark underworld of the Vietnam veterans. This could never, would never, have happened in any earlier group of veterans, under any circumstances whatsoever. Now those bitter old men can crawl back into their holes down in Middle Earth or wherever they came from, and choke on their bile anonymously for the rest of their miserable lives. They really uplifted the American spirit and enlightened our public discourse, didn't they? And all they did for Daddy Bush was buy him a few points in an opinion poll. There's a long way to go from here to November, and John Kerry is hardly the wimp you all have tried to paint him as. Bush doesn't have a record. He has a problem. I think America is just holding its collective breath he doesn't invade Iran or something else to kill any of our kids just to buy himself another victory. I mean if the Commander in Chief would blatantly defame an honorable veteran in AUGUST, what the hell is he going to be willing to do if he's behind in OCTOBER? The only thing the Democrats have to do to win this is to stay on message about Bush's extreme failures, propose a positive plan, turn out the vote and keep sharp eyes on All the President's Dirty Men.

[AB]

We're not talking about taking public dumps into the media, Pouncer. We're talking about votes. The main thing these guys have exposed to the general public is the dark underworld of the Vietnam veterans. This could never, would never, have happened in any earlier group of veterans, under any circumstances whatsoever. Now those bitter old men can crawl back into their holes down in Middle Earth or wherever they came from, and choke on their bile anonymously for the rest of their miserable lives. They really uplifted the American spirit and enlightened our public discourse, didn't they? And all they did for Daddy Bush was buy him a few points in an opinion poll. There's a long way to go from here to November, and John Kerry is hardly the wimp you all have tried to paint him as. Bush doesn't have a record. He has a problem. I think America is just holding its collective breath he doesn't invade Iran or something else to kill any of our kids just to buy himself another victory. I mean if the Commander in Chief would blatantly defame an honorable veteran in AUGUST, what the hell is he going to be willing to do if he's behind in OCTOBER? The only thing the Democrats have to do to win this is to stay on message about Bush's extreme failures, propose a positive plan, turn out the vote and keep sharp eyes on All the President's Dirty Men.

[Frank IBC]

The only thing the Democrats have to do to win this is to stay on message about Bush's extreme failures, propose a positive plan.

Still waiting on the last item. They've had 3 years and 10 months to get their act together - it doesn't seem likely that it's going to suddenly happen in a 2-month period.

[Brennan Stout]

Just so we're clear AB, the Democratic Party nominated John Kerry because he had the best chance to defeat George Bush, not because they actually believed in him or his policies.

Just take a look at the individual contribution pages that the Kerry Campaign website shows. Each person is raising money based on the ABB strategy.

[AB]

That's funny Frank, because I have laid out several positive aspects of the Democratic plan, repeatedly, as has John Kerry. You have chosen to ignore them. I heard some Repub shill on the news before saying Kerry's numbers have dropped because the more people hear about his policies, the less they like him. Do these people really think the American public is that stupid? No one has heard anything about anyone's policies or plans. Thanks to Sean "Fred Flintstone" Hannity and Rush "Dopefiend" Limbaugh, no one has had a chance to hear anything other than the baldfaced slander of a bunch of pathetic old men.

What's more the Democrats do support John Kerry's policies. We support actually working to create an equitable society, a society that functions for the good of ALL it's citizens. It is really incredibly simple. The Republicans offer very little to the average American other than fear and platitudes. That's why they are so driven to control the media's message.

I say, very confidently, if the Republicans can be kept to a clean election (which I know is a daunting prospect) they will lose. And if they don't keep it clean, the American people will uncover the truth in good time.

[Robert E. Bihlmayer]

>Look behind you, aging Viagra addicted white guys, you're not the majority any more.

I believe that you made a typographical error, AB; clearly you must have meant, referring to your leftist co-religionists,

"Look behind you, aging Vietnam-addicted white guys, you're not the majority any more."

[Frank IBC]

Monique -

If you are so dead-set against the Iraq War, why do you support someone - John Kerry - who voted in favor of it, and has said he would do so again, with or without WMDs?

Viagra-addicted white guys

Wha's'a matta, Monique? Hubby not satisfying you these days?

I heard some Repub shill on the news before saying Kerry's numbers have dropped because the more people hear about his policies, the less they like him. Do these people really think the American public is that stupid?

Yes, it's sad but true - the Democrats really DO think Americans are that stupid. That's why the Democrats are losing.

Sean "Fred Flintstone" Hannity and Rush "Dopefiend" Limbaugh

Ladies and gentlemen, behold the next Seinfeld...

[syn]

In other words, what AB is really means is "Communists for Kerry"!

Hey man, Kerry's magic bus ride is freaky.

[syn]

Please excuse my grammar, I meant to write:

In other words, what AB really means is "Communist for Kerry!"

[AB]

Heh heh, you can always get an old man's goat with a Viagra joke. It's nothing to be ashamed of Frank.

Seriously, you guys haven't noticed your kerr-azy ass freeper sites are wallpapered with ads for hardon drugs? We joke about it all the time. It's hardly a coincidence.

[Slartibartfast]

1) It's bad enough having to scroll past your spittle-flecked rants once, AB. Hit the post button once, only.

2) Anger is a poor substitute for reason. If all you can come up with is enraged ad hominem, you're just going to get ridiculed.

3) This "I know you are, but what am I?" game you're playing here...this is the sort of thing the rest of us left behind before hitting puberty. Give it a rest.

[Greg F]

"Seriously, you guys haven't noticed your kerr-azy ass freeper sites are wallpapered with ads for hardon drugs?"

Actually no AB, I suspect your getting targeted ads. Maybe you should clean up your cookie files.

[Greg F]

"We support actually working to create an equitable society, a society that functions for the good of ALL it's citizens."

So did Vladimir Lenin, I expect the same results.

[Frank IBC]

Greg F -

LOL!

She's deleting all her recipies for Toll House, Oatmeal Raisin, etc. as we speak.

Don't tell her about "spyware". She'll think the CIA is on to her.

Not that I'm old, but I don't make jokes at the expense of the old, either, unlike Ms. Oh-So-Caring Monique/AB.

[FrankNH]

Wait till she reads the latest poll numbers.
PA is virtually a dead heat and GWB is within three points in CA.
Not to mention OH going even more red.
Enjoy!

[FrankNH]

Wait till she reads the latest poll numbers.
PA is virtually a dead heat and GWB is within three points in CA.
Not to mention OH going even more red.
Enjoy!

[robert0]

FATHER RAPERS!

That is awesome.

[robert0]

In particular, the inspectors would have found that Saddam had consistant intent to conceal his crimes, past and still-planned.

For that, "consistant intent to conceal his crimes?"

So when is our military going to invade the whitehouse and take out George Bush?

[Jim C.]

Just imagine all those mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers and wives and husbands who would not now be praying for their fallen.

Posted by: robert0 | August 26, 2004 11:49 PM

I certainly can imagine them. They'd be praying for their loved ones who Saddam would continue to torture and kill. You remember, the ones the news media wouldn't tell us about so Saddam would let them stay in Iraq. And they'd be cursing people like you for letting that happen.

I say, very confidently, if the Republicans can be kept to a clean election (which I know is a daunting prospect) they will lose. And if they don't keep it clean, the American people will uncover the truth in good time.

Posted by: AB | August 27, 2004 02:21 PM

Of course, the Democrats would NEVER run a corrupt election (hint: dead people voting in Chicago).

Seriously, you guys haven't noticed your kerr-azy ass freeper sites are wallpapered with ads for hardon drugs? We joke about it all the time. It's hardly a coincidence.

Posted by: AB | August 27, 2004 03:36 PM

And very mature, junior high school level jokes they are, I'm sure.

I know what will happen if Bush wins.

Posted by: AB | August 27, 2004 09:29 AM

You couldn't be more wrong. Bush will suspend the Constitution, jail all members of Congress but the most loyal Republicans, send all Arabs, Muslims, and liberals to concentration camps (complete with working "showers"), then invade Canada. At least, that's what they told me at the last secret meeting of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, where I proudly hold the rank of Senior Digital Brownshirt.

And if you believe any of that or anything remotely like it, you should sign yourself in to a mental health facility immediately.

[AB]

I'm loving the new revelations re Doug Feith and his inhouse spy. I hear this is just the beginning. One problem the Bush admin has is that it isn't only the Democrats, the informed portion of the American public and most of the rest of the world that hates them...there's a hell of an internecine war going on. Justice hates DOD. CIA isn't happy either, they really hate when their spies identities get leaked, among other things. The timing here, just before the RNC, is extremely interesting. Also the fact that Ashcroft wasn't the one making the statement. This one is going to be BIG, it is going to go to the real heart of the competence and honesty of the admin. You guys will love it! I've heard the FBI has a "tuned canary" in the Pentagon. Watch out.

And of course we do now have MSM coverage of Bob Barnes, the Texas official who let little Georgie hop ahead of a long list, even though he barely passed the exam. And there's the new poll showing that more people each day believe Bush himself is behind the lying attacks on the veteran John Kerry. And geez, that Abu Ghraib stuff showing the entire chain of command was implicated, when Bush & Co. couldn't race fast enough to the microphone to blame it on a bunch of enlisted chumps. And the poverty stats. And the fact that the USArmy is as impotent as a convention of freepers when it comes to actually controlling the situation in Iraq, needing the Islamic cleric to do the work the interim govt. could not, and letting ElSadr go free as a bird! And wait - the DAY the RNC ends, the new job figures come out! Bulletin from the real world: they won't be pretty.

On the other hand, you do have going in your favor that so much of your target audience has a great aversion to both reading and thinking. Anything with details is going to be tough for them. And I have to admit, the Dems have just not mastered the art of red meat propaganda the way the Repubs have.( Well, Michael Moore mastered it, which is clearly why he gets you guys so apoplectic. ) It's hard to win an election when you actually RESPECT the people you are asking to vote for you.

Oh, and Frank, I'm so verry sorry for making fun of old people. I forgot how ethical and moral all you freepers are. And not at all limp armchair Rambos.

[AB]

I'm loving the new revelations re Doug Feith and his inhouse spy. I hear this is just the beginning. One problem the Bush admin has is that it isn't only the Democrats, the informed portion of the American public and most of the rest of the world that hates them...there's a hell of an internecine war going on. Justice hates DOD. CIA isn't happy either, they really hate when their spies identities get leaked, among other things. The timing here, just before the RNC, is extremely interesting. Also the fact that Ashcroft wasn't the one making the statement. This one is going to be BIG, it is going to go to the real heart of the competence and honesty of the admin. You guys will love it! I've heard the FBI has a "tuned canary" in the Pentagon. Watch out.

And of course we do now have MSM coverage of Bob Barnes, the Texas official who let little Georgie hop ahead of a long list, even though he barely passed the exam. And there's the new poll showing that more people each day believe Bush himself is behind the lying attacks on the veteran John Kerry. And geez, that Abu Ghraib stuff showing the entire chain of command was implicated, when Bush & Co. couldn't race fast enough to the microphone to blame it on a bunch of enlisted chumps. And the poverty stats. And the fact that the USArmy is as impotent as a convention of freepers when it comes to actually controlling the situation in Iraq, needing the Islamic cleric to do the work the interim govt. could not, and letting ElSadr go free as a bird! And wait - the DAY the RNC ends, the new job figures come out! Bulletin from the real world: they won't be pretty.

On the other hand, you do have going in your favor that so much of your target audience has a great aversion to both reading and thinking. Anything with details is going to be tough for them. And I have to admit, the Dems have just not mastered the art of red meat propaganda the way the Repubs have.( Well, Michael Moore mastered it, which is clearly why he gets you guys so apoplectic. ) It's hard to win an election when you actually RESPECT the people you are asking to vote for you.

Oh, and Frank, I'm so verry sorry for making fun of old people. I forgot how ethical and moral all you freepers are. And not at all limp armchair Rambos.

[Brennan Stout]

The wisdom of AB.

"No one has heard anything about anyone's policies or plans. Thanks to Sean "Fred Flintstone" Hannity and Rush "Dopefiend" Limbaugh, no one has had a chance to hear anything other than the baldfaced slander of a bunch of pathetic old men."

Collectively these two "pathetic old men" have about one tenth to one percent of an audience that isn't already voting for Bush. Because they reach so many undecideds they are shaping the word that has produced the latest polls of a declining Kerry.

Yabba Dabba Doo AB!

[exguru]

The work of Richard Reeves should be publicly burned.