FEB. 28, 1969: ON THE DONG CUNG RIVER

How does he do it? How do they do it? Uncanny and immutable.
This is such a happening tailpipe of a party.
Like sugar, the guests are so refined

A confidence man, but why so beleaguered?
He's not a leader, he's a Texas leaguer
Swinging for the fence, got lucky with his strike
Drilling for fear, makes the job simple
Born on third, thinks he got a triple

Blackout weaves its way through the city
Blackout weaves its way through the city
Blackout weaves its way,...

I remember when you sang
That song about today
Now it's tomorrow and
Everything has changed

A think tank of aloof multiplication
A nicotine wish and a columbus decanter
Retrenchment and hoggishness
The aristocrat choir sings
"What's the ruckus?"
The haves, have not a clue
The immenseness of suffering
And the odd negotiation, a rarity
With onionskin plausibility of life,
And a keyboard reaffirmation

Blackout weaves its way through the city
Blackout weaves its way through the city
Blackout weaves its way,...

I remember when you sang
That song about today
Now it's tomorrow and
Everything has changed

Every time I see him quoted, I'm reminded of why he's on ignore. Too many lies to respond to--the swift boat liars have a budget in the millions, over 10x what gyptian claimed. And apparently he's never seen moveon's ads ridiculing Bush's AWOL stint in the Guard--since what they say is actually true, it's much more damaging than the swift boat lies.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by optics
This is interesting.

Did you see W standing in front of the fake hay, talking to working families, saying, "I'll tell you how we're different, they're gonna raise your taxes, we're not"?

Under Kerry's tax plan, 98% of people will get a tax cut, only the top 2% earners won't. Do you think Bush was talking to the top 2% when he made that statement? Last I saw, the richest people in the country aren't hanging out on the farm in Iowa.

So fucking disgusting that he does that with a straight face.

---

No, what is really disgusting is watching Kerry talk about raising taxes on the rich as defined by income, while having no proposals to close the kind of loopholes that benefit him and Edwards, who are the truly rich by every measure.

Edit - Note on my real opinion: These are the worst two candidates for President ever, and it is depressing. Bush spends too much, is not conducting a thoughtful war against terrorism, and is definately not a character role model. Kerry will spend even more (though a republican house may counteract that just to oppose him), he offers no unique approach to terrorism, and his tax policies suck. This race has taken mudslinging to new lows through SBVT ads, and Michael Mooron movies. Policy discussion has come down to which candidate bled more 36 years ago - and by that standard Bob Dole should have been president, and Bush I should have had a second term.

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527eventsdetail.asp

This is where I obtained the info regarding the 527's.

An August to remember:

If it seems to you like every day something new and damaging to the Kerry Campaign pops up - it's because literally almost every day something damaging to the campaign has popped up.

Let's take a look at the month of August to illustrate how the Kerry Campaign has truly been the gang that couldn't shoot straight. (How come nobody has been fired for this epic bumbling?)

Aug. 1 - Normally a candidate gets a "bounce" in the polls immediately after his convention - not so for Kerry.

Aug. 2 - Kerry advisor says Kerry will make world safer by giving Iran nuclear fuel and hope that they use it for good. Sane people everywhere say, "Are you friggin' kidding me?" Meanwhile the Kerry campaign suffers some guilt from association after Howard Dean questions the timing of terror alerts in New York - claiming they could be politically motivated. Again, sane people everywhere ask, "Are you friggin' kidding me?"

Aug. 3 - Swift Boat Veterans for Truth explain their version of the real story of John Kerry's military history - this picture was interesting

Aug. 4 - The Kerry campaign and DNC lawyers threaten legal action against any stations that air the Swift Boat ads. Instead of addressing the allegations made by the vets - Kerry decides that threat of legal action would be better. The campaign slogan is officially amended to "Bring it on.....and we'll sue!" Meanwhile Senator Kerry announces:


I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.

Aug. 5 - Kerry tells reporters that he would not have waited around like Bush did for 7 minutes on 9/11. He states:

"Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whispered in my ear, 'America is under attack,' I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the president of the United States had something that he needed to attend to -- and I would have attended to it."

This claim comes back to bite him in the ass when his actual reaction to the morning of 9/11 is revealed - over 40 minutes of not being able to think or act.

Aug. 6 - Former New York Mayor - Rudy Giuliani notes that it is sad that a man running for the president seems to be getting his clues from Michael Moore and Rudy adds for good measure:

John Kerry is an indecisive candidate [with] an inconsistent position on the War on Terror, who voted against funding for our troops and who cannot give a clear answer on his position concerning the decision to remove Saddam Hussein

On the Swift Boat front - the now controversial Michael Kranish pens a piece for the Boston Globe that claims that George Elliot has recanted his criticism of John Kerry. George Elliot responds under oath saying "I said no such things."

Aug. 7 - Kerry's wife Theresa contradicts Kerry's claim that the President did not act properly on the morning of 9/11 by saying:

"I think the president behaved correctly in terms of being quiet amidst stunning news like that in a classroom of kids," she told the host of MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews" during an interview before the Democratic National Convention last month. "You know, what can you do? It takes you a couple of minutes to digest what you have just heard. And then he was . . . not in his White House and in his office with all of his people. He was in the school in Florida."

Aug. 8 - At the DNC Theresa Heinz-Kerry claimed to be active in anti-Apartheid protests but evidence suggests that she attended just a single protest.

Aug. 9 - A Rueters article notes that; "Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found." This goes over well with the Deaniac base.

Aug. 10 - The Mary Ann Knowles story about having to work through chemotherapy that Kerry used at the DNC turns out to be untrue.

Aug. 11 - The Kerry Campaign changes its story on Christmas in Cambodia. I don't think "seared into my memory" means what I think he thinks it means.

Aug. 12 - Quiet day for the Kerry Campaign. Whoever was in charge today should get a promotion.

Aug. 13 - Grumbling from the Kerry Press Corps. Oh and an article by Kathleen Antrim in the ultra liberal San Francisco Examiner leads with, "John F. Kerry's campaign for president is imploding. And he knows it."

Aug. 14 - Dave Kopel examines media bias on the Swift Boat Veterans issue.

Aug. 15 - The Christmas in Cambodia claims are examined in of all places - The Seattle Times

Aug. 16 - It is noted that the Kerry / Edwards Campaign site touts that "Kerry is an Experienced Leader in the Intelligence Field - John Kerry served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is the former Vice Chairman of the Committee" - the problem is that was actually Bob Kerrey. John Kerry was never Vice Chairman (maybe there was an attendance requirement?). The claim was later removed from the site but it is strange that Kerry doesn't even seem to know his own resume.

Reports that David Alston never served with Kerry on a Swift Boat turn out to be false but the truth is that it is likely that Alston only served a week with Kerry. Alston is quietly dropped by the Kerry campaign. Bonus - Christmas in Cambodia gets coverage in the Wall Street Journal.

Aug. 17 - FactCheck.org researches a Bush ad claim that Kerry missed 76% of the meetings for the Senate Intelligence Committee (a committee on which Kerry sat and something on his resume that he touts as reason to vote for him). After checking the available data - FactCheck.org says that the amount of meetings missed or skipped by Kerry was probably higher than 76%. Kerry refuses to release records on his attendance at "closed" meetings

Aug. 18 - Swift Boat vets respond to a counter ad by MoveOn PAC

"We find it odd that MoveOn PAC would question the right of a group of veterans to voice an opinion on a legitimate issue-an issue first raised by John Kerry-and now the centerpiece of his campaign," said Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, U.S. Navy (Ret.), founder and chairman of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (www.swiftvets.com). "The 300-plus veterans who make up the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have every right to participate in a public debate concerning the controversy surrounding John Kerry’s military service record. We were there. We served alongside John Kerry and we know the history of his service. We will not be silenced."

Kerry recieves a less than overwhelming reception from the VFW in Cincinnati.
Aug. 19 - Veterans from the USS Gridley (who served with Kerry on his first tour of Vietnam) come forward as not real enamored of the Senator and the words "just another goofy Ensign" enter the national consciousness.

Aug. 20 - A second ad from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is released. This ad deals with Kerry's testimony in front of Congress in which he alleges war crimes were rampant in Vietnam. The Veterans in the ad are none too happy with Kerry. The NY Post also has a Christmas in Cambodia piece.

Aug. 21 - The Washington Post profiles William Ferris (who was severely wounded in action and who watched John Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony about war crimes from his hospital bed) and other Swift Boat veterans. The article reminds the reader that Kerry has not released his medical or military records.

Aug. 22 - Bob Dole says something that probably many were thinking:

"One day he's saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons," Dole said. "The next day he's standing there, 'I want to be president because I'm a Vietnam veteran.

"Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one in Vietnam," said Dole, whose World War II wounds left him without the use of his right arm.

Dole added: "And here's, you know, a good guy, a good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you're out."

The Main Stream Media handling of Kerry's Vietnam record starts to turn from kid glove coverage to real journalism with articles by Michael Barone and John Leo in US New & World Report, a column asking for answers from Kerry by Ken Tower in Investor's Business Daily

Now there were many more things that I could have added in but I think you get the idea. Whoever is running the Kerry Campaign has no clue, no strategy and no control over the message that the campaign should be getting out. They pinned their hopes on presenting Kerry as a decorated war veteran and pretty much nothing else. That strategy is coming back to haunt them in a big way.

With the Swift Boat ads doing damage to their candidates credibility - the Kerry Campaign now wants to focus on issues but the questions raised by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth remain unanswered and claims of wanting to run an issues oriented campaign ring hollow when one considers that the DNC was pretty much issue free.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by powderhound
How does he do it? How do they do it? Uncanny and immutable.
This is such a happening tailpipe of a party.
Like sugar, the guests are so refined

A confidence man, but why so beleaguered?
He's not a leader, he's a Texas leaguer
Swinging for the fence, got lucky with his strike
Drilling for fear, makes the job simple
Born on third, thinks he got a triple

Blackout weaves its way through the city
Blackout weaves its way through the city
Blackout weaves its way,...

I remember when you sang
That song about today
Now it's tomorrow and
Everything has changed

A think tank of aloof multiplication
A nicotine wish and a columbus decanter
Retrenchment and hoggishness
The aristocrat choir sings
"What's the ruckus?"
The haves, have not a clue
The immenseness of suffering
And the odd negotiation, a rarity
With onionskin plausibility of life,
And a keyboard reaffirmation

Blackout weaves its way through the city
Blackout weaves its way through the city
Blackout weaves its way,...

I remember when you sang
That song about today
Now it's tomorrow and
Everything has changed

---

ahhh....Bushleager...good PJ album.

McCain calling out Bush is some good chit.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mcwop
- and by that standard Bob Dole should have been president, and Bush I should have had a second term.

---

Quick Hijack,
There is a great book out called "Flyboys" written about the navy pilots fighting over Japan and the Islands during World War II. George senior while not the main character is one of the pilots highlighted in the book. A true war hero that went to fight for his country despite coming from an old money background.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mcwop
Kerry will spend even more he offers no unique approach to terrorism, and his tax policies suck.

---

They said Clinton would spend too much also. They were wrong then, just as now. Kerry's 'unique' approach to terrorism is to actually confront the problem and get the terrorists, as opposed to 'liberating' an oil-rich state that poses no immediate threat to us, in the process diverting military resources from the true threat. He is also capable of abstract thought and able to understand the importance of allies, unlike GWB. As for your criticism of Kerry's tax policies, I can only assume you're not familiar with them/believe the Republican mantra that he'll raise taxes (untrue, unless you're already in the top 2%--the people Bush gave a tax break to).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
They said Clinton would spend too much also. They were wrong then, just as now. Kerry's 'unique' approach to terrorism is to actually confront the problem and get the terrorists, as opposed to 'liberating' an oil-rich state that poses no immediate threat to us, in the process diverting military resources from the true threat. He is also capable of abstract thought and able to understand the importance of allies, unlike GWB. As for your criticism of Kerry's tax policies, I can only assume you're not familiar with them/believe the Republican mantra that he'll raise taxes (untrue, unless you're already in the top 2%--the people Bush gave a tax break to).

---

Clinton did try and spend but he was opposed by congress - I believe the same might be true if Kerry is in office rather than repubs giving Bush a blank check. This is a potential plus of a Kerry presidency. However, if Kerry does pass the spending outlined in the proposals on his webiste, then the deficit will continue to spiral out of control.

Kerry's approach is hardly unique. But I do agree that Iraq diverted important resources. France has hardly proven an ally - UNSCAM helped Saddam while we tried to contain him is but one example.

I am very familiar with Kerry's tax policies, and taxes are a part of what I do for a living. His policies will not be a significant change, and sorely lack details such as what happens if the incomes of the top 2% don't recover (see chart at bottom). For his policy to generate the needed revenues then the rich need to get richer and fast. Declining incomes for the rich and capital losses from the stock market are the biggest contribtors to the decline of tax revenue. Are you saying bush only gave a tax break to the top 2%? Not true he gave a tax break to every income group, even some that paid no taxes (through the EITC), and the top 2%.

Remember the last two "Anybody But" elections, and what happened:
-Anybody but someone assciated with Clinton = Bush II
-Anybody but LBJ = Nixon
I must admit though by this logic one can only try Kerry and hope he is at least no worse.

Regardless Dex, thanks for keeping it real and civil while debating the issues.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/commen...lthy.chart.jpg

Actually, it was Clinton who submitted a balanced budget, not Congress doing the balancing for him.

Clinton Submits Balanced Budget to Congress
By Eric Pianin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 3, 1998; Page A01

President Clinton yesterday did what he promised in his State of the Union address and submitted the first balanced budget in 30 years, one that would bar substantial new spending and tax cuts until a plan is in place to preserve Social Security.

"This budget marks an end to decades of deficits that have shackled our economy, paralyzed our politics and held our people back," Clinton said at a White House ceremony. "It can mark the beginning of a new era of opportunity for a new American Century."


Bush has turned this around, just as Bush I and Reagan spent what they didn't have before him. Despite the rhetoric, it is Democrats who have been more fiscally responsible. As for Kerry's tax proposals, the fact is that most Americans would pay less with his program than they have with Bush's--many midde income people have seen their taxes rise since Bush took office, something I'm sure you know. True, everyone received an automatic refund, but for many this was more than offset by what they ended up paying. What you haven't mentioned are Kerry's proposals to close the loopholes that allow corporations to shelter their incomes offshore/overseas, something Bush has done nothing to discourage. Kerry will also provide incentives for companies to keep jobs here and provide health care, two other things the Bush White House don't believe are necessary.

Bush seems to be (knowingly or not) controlled by a group of starve-the-beasters, and this has the potential to lead us into true economic ruin, something we will not have to worry about under President Kerry.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
Actually, it was Clinton who submitted a balanced budget, not Congress doing the balancing for him.

Clinton Submits Balanced Budget to Congress
By Eric Pianin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 3, 1998; Page A01

President Clinton yesterday did what he promised in his State of the Union address and submitted the first balanced budget in 30 years, one that would bar substantial new spending and tax cuts until a plan is in place to preserve Social Security.

"This budget marks an end to decades of deficits that have shackled our economy, paralyzed our politics and held our people back," Clinton said at a White House ceremony. "It can mark the beginning of a new era of opportunity for a new American Century."


Bush has turned this around, just as Bush I and Reagan spent what they didn't have before him. Despite the rhetoric, it is Democrats who have been more fiscally responsible. As for Kerry's tax proposals, the fact is that most Americans would pay less with his program than they have with Bush's--many midde income people have seen their taxes rise since Bush took office, something I'm sure you know. True, everyone received an automatic refund, but for many this was more than offset by what they ended up paying. What you haven't mentioned are Kerry's proposals to close the loopholes that allow corporations to shelter their incomes offshore/overseas, something Bush has done nothing to discourage. Kerry will also provide incentives for companies to keep jobs here and provide health care, two other things the Bush White House don't believe are necessary.

Bush seems to be (knowingly or not) controlled by a group of starve-the-beasters, and this has the potential to lead us into true economic ruin, something we will not have to worry about under President Kerry.

---

Sorry, only partly correct. In 1997 congress passsed the Balanced Budget Act, which required that a balanced budget be submitted.

On July 28, 1997, United States Congressional leaders and President Clinton announced that an agreement had been reached to bring the Federal budget into balance by fiscal year (FY) 2002. This five-year plan to balance the Federal budget included recommended changes in Federal revenues and expenditures.

The initial phases of this agreement were implemented when the United States Congress approved the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the Taxpayers Relief Act of 1997 during August 1997. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 established general policy changes over the FY 1998 through FY 2002 period that would be necessary to move toward a balanced Federal budget. The Taxpayers Relief Act of 1997 put in place tax policy changes that were an important piece of the overall budget agreement

The BBA of 1997 was submitted by Sponsor: Rep Kasich, John R. [OH-12] (introduced 6/24/1997).

Clinton deserves credit, but so do the Repubs. Pretty bipartisan.

Aslo remember all the spending (e.g. Hillarycare) that was stopped during his term. Additionally, a BBA was passed in 1995 and vetoed by the President.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mcwop
Sorry, only partly correct. In 1997 congress passsed the Balanced Budget Act, which required that a balanced budget be submitted.

---

You'd never know it today, would you? But I believe your correction is misleading. Clinton deserves more credit for actually coming through. As your excerpt notes, a balanced budget was not required for years after Clinton submitted his. Thus by balancing the budget early, Clinton gave Bush the surpluses he promptly erased (and a lot more).

Quote:

---

Aslo remember all the spending (e.g. Hillarycare) that was stopped during his term. Additionally, a BBA was passed in 1995 and vetoed by the President.

---

Actually, the BBA failed by one vote in the Senate. And then it was the Republicans who shut down the government over it...and frankly, a BBA is probably not a good thing to have, although it might seem so at first glance. There is a case to be made for running a deficit when necessary--I'd just argue that our current deficit was entirely unnecessary (particularly to the extent that we now see).
I also support universal health care in almost any form, as it would be preferable to having 43 million uninsured and spiraling private health care costs. Conservatives make it sound as if we'd be paying for something that we're not already paying for excessively, anyway. Universal coverage would allow early treatment and streamline payments, both of which would ultimately reduce total costs. But aside from that, I don't recall many big ticket items Clinton had defeated by Congress--supposedly Clinton's advisers largely convinced him of the wisdom of reigning in spending (for better or worse).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
[B]You'd never know it today, would you? But I believe your correction is misleading. Clinton deserves more credit for actually coming through. As your excerpt notes, a balanced budget was not required for years after Clinton submitted his. Thus by balancing the budget early, Clinton gave Bush the surpluses he promptly erased (and a lot more).



Actually, the BBA failed by one vote in the Senate. And then it was the Republicans who shut down the government over it...and frankly, a BBA is probably not a good thing to have, although it might seem so at first glance. There is a case to be made for running a deficit when necessary--I'd just argue that our current deficit was entirely unnecessary (particularly to the extent that we now see).
I also support universal health care in almost any form, as it would be preferable to having 43 million uninsured and spiraling private health care costs. Conservatives make it sound as if we'd be paying for something that we're not already paying for excessively, anyway. Universal coverage would allow early treatment and streamline payments, both of which would ultimately reduce total costs. But aside from that, I don't recall many big ticket items Clinton had defeated by Congress--supposedly Clinton's advisers largely convinced him of the wisdom of reigning in spending (for better or worse).

---

Bush did not erase the surplus - did you read my references to declining incomes in an earlier post? This NYT article explains it well. Declining incomes of the rich decimated tax revenues.

Universal healthcare is fine but not if it costs me a 14-17% payroll tax - which was a part of Hillarycare. There are decent UHC proposals out there, but none of the current candidates have them. Agreed - Clinton's advisors were right.

Yes, the slow stock market and recession impacted tax revenues, but you can't let Bush off the hook based on that. He (or his advisers, anyway) knew what the economy looked like, but wanted to throw money at corporate donors and the wealthiest Americans. And then he went into Iraq, which is sort of like a free money party for Halliburton (Dick's friends) and the defense industry (George's buddies/donors).

Here's an article detailing what the CBO said about Bush's budgets:

Bush budget said to cause $2.75T deficits
By Alan Fram, Associated Press Writer, 2/27/2004

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's budget would produce deficits totaling $2.75 trillion over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office projected Friday in the first authoritative look at the plan's longer-range implications.

The forecast -- $737 billion worse than the budget office expects should Congress ignore Bush's tax and spending plans -- is sure to factor into this year's presidential and congressional campaigns.

Bush sent lawmakers a $2.4 trillion budget for 2005 on Feb. 2, but it projected outward only for five years. The White House argues that longer-range forecasts are guesswork, but Democrats say the administration wants to hide future deficits that will career out of control as baby boomers begin to retire.

The nonpartisan budget office also forecast that Bush's fiscal plans would produce deficits of $478 billion this year and $356 billion in 2005. Both figures are smaller than the shortfalls Bush has projected for those years.

For the decade ending in 2014, however, annual shortfalls never would be smaller than $242 billion, which would occur in 2007, the budget office said. After that, they would bounce as high as $289 billion in 2014.

Last year's $374 billion shortfall was the largest ever in dollar terms.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by optics
This is interesting.

Did you see W standing in front of the fake hay, talking to working families, saying, "I'll tell you how we're different, they're gonna raise your taxes, we're not"?

Under Kerry's tax plan, 98% of people will get a tax cut, only the top 2% earners won't. Do you think Bush was talking to the top 2% when he made that statement? Last I saw, the richest people in the country aren't hanging out on the farm in Iowa.

So fucking disgusting that he does that with a straight face.

---

Well put, Optics. I've never been so disgusted with politics until this year. I wish they would get back to the issues. This smear attempt by Bush is just bullshit.
By the way, if you contribute now to the Bush Campaign, I hear that he's auctioning off parts of North Cascades National Park to dig for oil and kill the remaining 10 or so grizzly bears that exist. Hell, if he's cutting National Park funds - selling off Moab (ie..Canyonlands/Arches) and Yellowstone- 4 more years of this scares me. There's got to be balance.

As I see it, here are the issues facing us today:
1) Iraq
2) International Relations
3) Economy
4) Terrorism
5) Environment
6) Freedom of Speech (re: Clear Channel / FCC / Howard Stern)
7) "The Religious Right"
8) Education

Best Bumper stickers today: "Bush made me a Democrat"
"Mission not accomplished"
"Impeach Bush/Cheney"
and that was just on the 15 minute drive to work....

That's my rant. Now back to some friggin' ski stoke before I get all hot and bothered.

STOKE!

*AHEM*

Not to toot my own horn... but "I told you so."

http://tetongravity.com/forums/showt...ight=karl+rove

Quote:

---

Mwuuaaahhhhaaaahhhaaaa... and so it begins.

Of course this is the return volley for the "AWOL" press given the Shrub recently.

This will be the ugliest dogfight we've ever experienced in a campaign. Last time around Karl Rove, et. al., actually floated the idea that McCain had an illegitimate black daughter just before the South Carolina primary... remember that? It cost McCain the state, and afterwards they said... oh wait, she's Asian and adopted... our bad.

They also painted a Senator from Georgia (forgot his name) as Anti-Military... he had lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam. He lost to some ultra-conservative in a VERY close race.

These are the kind of people the Dems are up against. I hope they fight fire with fire... it will make this year very entertaining.

And if you believe everything that idiot Matt Drudge spouts, I have a bridge to sell you...

---

I gotta say, the discussion here has been of a calibre far superior to the ad hominem attacks. What's up with that?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mcwop
No, what is really disgusting is watching Kerry talk about raising taxes on the rich as defined by income, while having no proposals to close the kind of loopholes that benefit him and Edwards, who are the truly rich by every measure.

---

Does that really bother you more than Bush lying to the face of working Americans?

To me, Bush's intentional gross misrepresentation of his tax plan, and Kerry's, purely in the interest of winning (buying?) votes is far more disgusting than any realtively minor loophole issues, which affect a relatively minor segment of the population.

Bush has always, and will always count on the lower-income portion of his base to accept what he says without question, and without looking in to whether or not it's accurate.

From my perspective, Bush is in the white house for one reason.
He counted on Americans being either:
-Stupid, lazy, and trusting.
or
-Sneaky, greedy, and free of ethics.
He's won that bet so far.

In my personal experience, every Bush supporter I've ever spoken with has fallen into one of these categories.

By the way - does Bush close the loopholes you addressed above?

Isn't making things somewhat closer to reasonable (even if not perfect) a step in the right direction?

One of these two will be president. You can't just say they both suck in the interest of idealism, you have to make a choice.

Chicago — When I came back from Vietnam, I always thought that the next argument was going to be between those who went overseas and those who stayed at home. But it turns out that the big argument now is between those veterans who thought the war was right and those who didn't. And further, it is amazing to me that the argument should revolve around medals and Purple Hearts and honorable service.

The plain fact is that in Vietnam medals were handed out like popcorn, right down to the Good Conduct Medal and the Rifle Sharpshooter Badge, particularly among career-minded officers and NCO's. Ticket-punching lifers, we called them with all the derision that the phrase implies; they seemed more interested in tending their precious careers than anything else.

I know officers who were given the Bronze Star for simply being in country (the ultimate in merit badges). An Air Force pilot told me that his commanding officer suggested that he write himself up for a Distinguished Flying Cross on no particular account, and that he, the commander, would sign it. To his credit, my friend did not do so. By the same token, a writer friend of mine keeps his Bronze Star to prove to his children and grandchildren that despite what they may hear about Vietnam, he acted the way an adult is supposed to act, with compassion and grit, and that if he is not especially proud of his service in Vietnam, he's not ashamed of it, either.

Regardless of career ambitions, there were officers and NCO's who understood the unvarnished reality of the war, and made no bones about it. When I left Fort Knox, Ky., for Vietnam in 1967, the sergeant (a full-blood Navajo Indian) called me into his office and told me flat out, "Remember, Heinemann, this is not a white man's war." After I'd been in country seven or eight months, a lieutenant with a degree in history took over our platoon. He gathered us young sergeants around him and said that our job was to make sure that everyone got home in one piece. We told him that his was a very good plan and how could we help.

The awards for Purple Hearts were mostly initiated by the medical staff. A wound is hard to fake, and you didn't put in for a Purple Heart, it was given to you whether you wanted one or not, or deserved it. And anyone who went looking for a Purple Heart was called "John Wayne," and avoided like the plague.

The veterans who seem eager to go after John Kerry remind me of the guys who thought, and perhaps still think, that the war was a right and righteous undertaking, and ultimately winnable. But to say that we could have won the war is the same as saying that we didn't fill our hearts with enough hate. Remember: we were not pleasant people, down where the rubber met the road, so to speak, and the war was not a pleasant business. John Kerry wasn't the only veteran to come back from the war spiritually exhausted and morally outraged - ready, willing and able to denounce his own government for its conduct of the war. Well before the end of my tour in March 1968, most everyone around me knew the war to be a fool's errand, but if there was any antiwar sentiment it didn't get much more sophisticated than the vast and colorful repertoire of curses you cannot repeat in a family newspaper.

But we knew what we saw, we knew what we did, and we knew what we had become. Soldiering, the downward path to wisdom to be sure. In 1971, when John Kerry sat before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the essence of his message was exact: many a mean thing was done, sir, from the Oval Office on down, and in the spirit of meanness. We love our nation dearly, but oppose this terrible war. Our country seems to have forfeited its moral authority, and that makes our hearts sore.

And all these years later - the name-calling and nitpicking about wounds suffered and medals earned and honorable service aside - the important matter is that, when push came to shove, Lieutenant Kerry turned his boat around and drove back into a firefight to fetch an Army Green Beret out of the river. I know that if it had been me in the water, I would surely remember the man's name, the look on his face, and the reach of his arm for the rest of my life; I would be sure to tell my grandchildren about him.


Larry Heinemann is the author of "Paco's Story," which received the National Book Award, and a forthcoming memoir about his experiences in Vietnam.

...and it can not be said any better. amen!

August 26, 2004

It Takes Real Courage to Desert Your Post and Then Attack a Wounded Vet

Dear Mr. Bush,

I know you and I have had our differences in the past, and I realize I am the one who started this whole mess about "who did what" during Vietnam when I brought up that "deserter" nonsense back in January. But I have to hand it to you on what you have uncovered about John Kerry and his record in Vietnam. Kerry has tried to pass himself off as a war hero, but thanks to you and your friends, we now know the truth.

First of all, thank you for pointing out to all of us that Mr. Kerry was never struck by a BULLET. It was only SHRAPNEL that entered his body! I did not know that! Hell, what's the big deal about a bunch of large, sharp, metal shards ripping open your flesh? That happens to all of us! In my opinion, if you want a purple heart, you'd better be hit with a bullet -- with your name on it!

Secondly, thank you for sending Bob Dole out there and letting us know that Mr. Kerry, though wounded three times, actually "never spilled blood." When you are in the debates with Kerry, turn to him and say, "Dammit, Mr. Kerry, next time you want a purple heart, you better spill some American red blood! And I don't mean a few specks like those on O.J.'s socks -- we want to see a good pint or two of blood for each medal. In fact, I would have preferred that you had bled profusely, a big geyser of blood spewing out of your neck or something!" Then throw this one at him: "Senator Kerry, over 58,000 brave Americans gave their lives in Vietnam -- but YOU didn't. You only got WOUNDED! What do you have to say for yourself???" Lay that one on him and he won't know what to do.

And thanks, also, Mr. Bush, for exposing the fact that Mr. Kerry might have actually WOUNDED HIMSELF in order to get those shiny medals. Of course he did! How could the Viet Cong have hit him -- he was on a SWIFT boat! He was going too fast to be hit by enemy fire. He tried to blow himself up three different times just so he could go home and run for president someday. It's all so easy to see, now, what he was up to.

What would we do without you, Mr. Bush? Criticize you as we might, when it comes to pointing out other men's military records, there is no one who can touch your prowess. In 2000, you let out the rumor that your opponent John McCain might be "nuts" from the 5 years he spent in a POW camp. Then, in the 2002 elections, your team compared triple-amputee Sen. Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden, and that cost him the election. And now you are having the same impact on war hero John Kerry. Since you (oops, I mean "The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth!") started running those ads, Kerry's polls numbers have dropped (with veterans, he has lost 18 points in the last few weeks).

Some people have said "Who are you, Mr. Bush, to attack these brave men considering you yourself have never seen combat -- in fact, you actively sought to avoid it." What your critics fail to understand is that even though your dad got you into a unit that would never be sent to Vietnam -- and even though you didn't show up for Guard duty for at least a year -- at least you were still IN FAVOR of the Vietnam War! Cowards like Clinton felt it was more important to be consistent (he opposed the war, thus he refused to go) than to be patriotic and two-faced.

The reason that I think you know so much about other men's war wounds is because, during your time you in the Texas Air National Guard, you suffered so many of them yourself. Consider the paper cut you received on September 22, 1972, while stationed in Alabama, working on a Senate campaign for your dad's friend (when you were supposed to be on the Guard base). A campaign brochure appeared from nowhere, ambushing your right index finger, and blood trickled out onto your brand new argyle sweater.

Then there was the incident with the Crazy Glue when your fraternity brothers visited you one weekend at the base and glued your lips together while you were "passed out." Though initially considered "friendly fire," it was later ruled that you suffered severe post traumatic stress disorder from the assault and required certain medicinal attention -- which, it seems, was provided by those same fraternity brethren.

But nothing matched your heroism when, on July 2, 1969, you sustained a massive head injury when enemy combatants from another Guard unit dropped a keg of Coors on your head during a reconnaissance mission at a nearby all-girls college. Fortunately, the cool, smooth fluids that poured out of the keg were exactly what was needed to revive you.

That you never got a purple heart for any of these incidents is a shame. I can fully appreciate your anger at Senator Kerry for the three he received. I mean, Kerry was a man of privilege, he could have gotten out just like you. Instead, he thinks he's going to gain points with the American people bragging about how he was getting shot at every day in the Mekong Delta. Ha! Is that the best he can do? Hell, I hear gunfire every night outside my apartment window! If he thinks he is going to impress anyone with the fact that he volunteered to go when he could have spent the Vietnam years on the family yacht, he should think again. That only shows how stupid he was! True-blue Americans want a president who knows how to pull strings and work the system and get away with doing as little work as possible!

So, to make it up to you, I have written some new ads you can use on TV. People will soon tire of the swift boat veterans and you are going to need some fresh, punchier material. Feel free to use any of these:

ANNOUNCER: "When the bullets were flying all around him in Vietnam, what did John Kerry do? He said he leaned over the boat and 'pulled a man out of the river.' But, as we all know, men don't live in the river -- fish do. John Kerry knows how to tell a big fish tale. What he won't tell you is that when the enemy was shooting at him, he ducked. Do you want a president who will duck? Vote Bush."

ANNOUNCER: "Mr. Kerry's biggest supporter, Sen. Max Cleland, claims to have lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam. But he still has one arm! How did that happen? One word: Cowardice. When duty called, he was unwilling to give his last limb. Is that the type of selfishness you want hanging out in the White House? We think not. Vote for the man who would be willing to give America his right frontal lobe. Vote Bush."

Hope these help, Mr. Bush. And remember, when the American death toll in Iraq hits 1,000 during the Republican convention, be sure to question whether those who died really did indeed "die" -- or were they just trying to get their face on CNN's nightly tribute to fallen heroes? The sixteen who've died so far this week were probably working hand in hand with the Kerry campaign to ruin your good time in New York. Stay consistent, sir, and always, ALWAYS question the veracity of anyone who risks their life for this country. It's the least they deserve.

Yours,

Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com


PS. George, I know you said you don't read the newspaper, but USA Today has given me credentials to the Republican convention to write a guest column each day next week (Tues.-Fri.). If you don't want to read it, you and I will be in the same building so maybe I could come by and read it to you? Lemme know...