quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan ...Bush said Kerry's statements about Iraq "can embolden an enemy."

Unlike "bring 'em on", I guess?

I don't know what is more absurd: these statements, or that there are actually people buying into them. Some uniter Bush turned out to be.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Unlike "bring 'em on", I guess? I don't know what is more absurd: these statements, or that there are actually people buying into them. Some uniter Bush turned out to be.

So far many here have bought it in large numbers, I question if they even examine the issues anymore.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan So far many here have bought it in large numbers, I question if they even examine the issues anymore.

Issues? What issues? All I know is, Kerry's quite the windsurfer! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

So you don't think that statements like those from Kerry can possibly boost the morale of the enemy we are fighting? Discrediting the PM of the country we are helping by saying our efforts are nothing short of a catastrophic failure does nothing to give confidence to the enemy we are fighting? Explain your logic to me.

Sure, Kerry has every right to say whatever he wants--I'm all for freedoms of speech here--but there are consequences and risks associated with those comments--much like there were ramifications to his speeches in front of congress i 1972 that no doubt gave comfort to the Vietnamese. Countless veterans have attested to that. Not to mention the damage it did to their own morale.

So sure, Kerry can say whatever he wants--but don't deny the risks and consequences associated with such. Screw his patriotism--how bout using some good ole' common sense! If he aspires to be commander in chief, the last thing he needs to do is portray an image of a commander in chief who attempts to destroy the morale of the very people he aspires to command!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Issues? What issues? All I know is, Kerry's quite the windsurfer! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

hehe...I'm trying to figure out which one is Limbaugh.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka So you don't think that statements like those from Kerry can possibly boost the morale of the enemy we are fighting? Discrediting the PM of the country we are helping by saying our efforts are nothing short of a catastrophic failure does nothing to give confidence to the enemy we are fighting? Explain your logic to me. Sure, Kerry has every right to say whatever he wants--I'm all for freedoms of speech here--but there are consequences and risks associated with those comments--much like there were ramifications to his speeches in front of congress i 1972 that no doubt gave comfort to the Vietnamese. Countless veterans have attested to that. Not to mention the damage it did to their own morale. So sure, Kerry can say whatever he wants--but don't deny the risks and consequences associated with such. Screw his patriotism--how bout using some good ole' common sense! If he aspires to be commander in chief, the last thing he needs to do is portray an image of a commander in chief who attempts to destroy the morale of the very people he aspires to command!

It doesn’t matter if statements from Kerry could possibly bolster the morale of enemy troops. Kerry, and every other leader, has an obligation to tell the public the truth. If you’re on the board of a corporation, and you can see that the CEO’s negligent policies are ruining the company, are you going to stay quiet in the next shareholders meeting when they’re electing a new CEO because you don’t want to encourage your competitors? Or do you have a fiduciary responsibility to tell your shareholders the truth of the situation so that they have the necessary information to make an informed decision when it comes to protecting their investment?

Similarly, if the President has embarked upon a failing strategy that will continue to fail if no changes are made what kind of common sense dictates that we ignore the indicators of deterioration under the ridiculous assumption that criticizing a failing strategy will make the situation “worse”? If I’m a major shareholder and you ruined my portfolio by making a colossal mistake, and you’re continuing to ruin my portfolio in your next stupid strategy, it’s asinine to suggest that I’m the one who’s making the situation worse by speaking up about your incompetence.

But hey, if Republicans wish to go down this route, then be my guest. But I implore you, please pick up a history book before you stick your foot in your mouth:

quote:

Yankee Go Home Who's leading the anti-war movement? Congressional Republicans. By William Saletan Posted Friday, May 7, 1999, at 12:30 AM PT Every time the United States goes into battle, anti-war activists blame the causes and casualties of the conflict on the U.S. government. They excuse the enemy regime's aggression and insist that it can be trusted to negotiate and honor a fair resolution. While doing everything they can to hamstring the American administration's ability to wage the war, they argue that the war can never be won, that the administration's claims to the contrary are lies, and that the United States should trim its absurd demands and bug out with whatever face-saving deal it can get. In past wars, Republicans accused these domestic opponents of sabotaging American morale and aiding the enemy. But in this war, Republicans aren't bashing the anti-war movement. They're leading it. Last weekend, three of the top five Republicans in Congress--Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles of Oklahoma, and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas--went on television to discuss the war. Here's what they said. 1. The atrocities are America's fault. "Once the bombing commenced, I think then [Slobodan] Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started," Nickles said at a news conference after appearing on Meet the Press. "The administration's campaign has been a disaster. ... [It] escalated a guerrilla warfare into a real war, and the real losers are the Kosovars and innocent civilians." On Fox News Sunday, DeLay blamed the ethnic cleansing on U.S. intervention. "Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode," DeLay charged in a House floor speech replayed on Late Edition. 2. The failure of diplomacy to avert the war is America's fault. "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning," Lott offered on Late Edition. "I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." Nickles called NATO's prewar peace proposal to the Serbs "a very arrogant agreement" that "really caused this thing to escalate." 3. Congress should not support the war. When asked whether they would authorize Clinton "to use all necessary force to win this war, including ground troops," Lott and Nickles --who had voted a month ago, along with 70 percent of the Senate GOP, not to support the NATO air campaign--said they wouldn't. Nickles questioned the propriety of "NATO's objectives," calling its goal of "access to all of Serbia ... ludicrous." DeLay, meanwhile, voted not only against last week's House resolution authorizing Clinton to conduct the air war--which failed on a tie vote--but also in favor of legislation "directing the president ... to remove U.S. Armed Forces from their positions in connection with the present operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." When asked whether he had lobbied his colleagues to defeat the resolution authorizing the air war, as had been reported, DeLay conceded that he had "talked to a couple of members during the vote" but claimed not to have swayed anyone since it was "a vote of conscience." 4. We can't win. "I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag," warned Nickles. DeLay agreed: "He's stronger in Kosovo now than he was before the bombing. ... The Serbian people are rallying around him like never before. He's much stronger with his allies, Russians and others." Clinton "has no plan for the end" and "recognizes that Milosevic will still be in power," added DeLay. "The bombing was a mistake. ... And this president ought to show some leadership and admit it, and come to some sort of negotiated end." 5. Don't believe U.S. propaganda. On Meet the Press, Defense Secretary William Cohen argued that Yugoslavia had underestimated NATO's resolve more than NATO had underestimated Yugoslavia's, and Joint Chiefs vice chairman Gen. Joseph Ralston asserted that Milosevic "had already started his campaign of killing" before NATO intervened. Nickles dismissed both arguments. "This war is not going well," he declared. "I heard Secretary Cohen say, 'Well, Milosevic miscalculated how, you know, steadfast we would be in the bombing campaign.' But frankly ... we grossly miscalculated what Milosevic's response would be." Later, Nickles volunteered, "I would take a little issue with [what] Gen. Ralston said. ... The number of killings prior to the bombing, I think, has been exaggerated." Moreover, given NATO's desperate need to "bring Milosevic to the table," DeLay cautioned, "It is not helpful for the president's spin machine to be out there right now saying that Milosevic is weakening." The truth, said DeLay, is that "nothing has changed." 6. Give peace a chance. Cohen said it was "highly unlikely" that Clinton would meet with Milosevic in response to Yugoslavia's release of the three captured American soldiers over the weekend, since the Serbs were continuing their atrocities and weren't offering to meet NATO's conditions. DeLay called this refusal "really disappointing" and a failure of "leadership. ... The president ought to open up negotiations and come to some sort of diplomatic end." Lott implored Clinton to "give peace a chance" and, comparing the war with the recent Colorado high-school shootings, urged him to resolve the Kosovo conflict with "words, not weapons." 7. We have no choice but to compromise. Unless Clinton finds "a way to get the bombing stopped" and to "get Milosevic to pull back his troops" voluntarily, NATO faces "a quagmire ... a long, protracted, bloody war," warned Lott. Clinton "only has two choices," said DeLay--to "occupy Yugoslavia and take Milosevic out" or "to negotiate some sort of diplomatic end, diplomatic agreement in order to end this failed policy." 8. We're eager to compromise. NATO has insisted all along that Milosevic must allow a well-armed international force in Kosovo to protect the ethnic Albanians. When asked whether "the administration ought to insist" that these requirements "be met" as a condition of negotiation, DeLay twice ducked the question. Nickles advocated "a compromise," and Lott expressed interest in Yugoslavia's proposal for a "lightly armed" U.N. peacekeeping force in Kosovo rather than a fully equipped NATO force. "Surely there's wiggle room," said Lott. "Obviously, [the Serbs] don't want them heavily armed, but they've got to be armed sufficiently to protect themselves. ... So, I think something can be worked out." 9. We'll back off first. Nickles discounted the administration's demand that Yugoslavia halt its ethnic cleansing in order to halt NATO's bombardment: "Secretary Cohen says, 'Well, Mr. Milosevic has to do all these things, then we'll stop the bombing.' Tim, I strongly believe we need a simultaneous withdrawal of the Serbian aggressive forces, have a stopping of the bombing, and an insertion of international police-keeping force." Lott's formulation put NATO's withdrawal first: "Let's see if we can't find a way to get the bombing stopped, get Milosevic to pull back his troops, find a way to get the Kosovars [to] go back in." And DeLay suggested that the United States should pull out unilaterally: "When Ronald Reagan saw that he had made a mistake putting our soldiers in Lebanon ... he admitted the mistake, and he withdrew from Lebanon." Some Democrats call Republicans who make these arguments unpatriotic. Republicans reply that they're serving their country by debunking and thwarting a bad policy administered by a bad president. You can be sure of only two things: Each party is arguing exactly the opposite of what it argued the last time a Republican president led the nation into war, and exactly the opposite of what it will argue next time. http://slate.msn.com//id/27730/

My god the man is prophetic.

Edit: Wait a minute ... did Delay really say that the Americans were responsible for the genocide??? LOL bring on the 527s!!!

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Sep-24-2004 at 18:44

quote:

Originally posted by occrider It doesn’t matter if statements from Kerry could possibly bolster the morale of enemy troops. Kerry, and every other leader, has an obligation to tell the public the truth. If you’re on the board of a corporation, and you can see that the CEO’s negligent policies are ruining the company, are you going to stay quiet in the next shareholders meeting when they’re electing a new CEO because you don’t want to encourage your competitors? Or do you have a fiduciary responsibility to tell your shareholders the truth of the situation so that they have the necessary information to make an informed decision when it comes to protecting their investment? Similarly, if the President has embarked upon a failing strategy that will continue to fail if no changes are made what kind of common sense dictates that we ignore the indicators of deterioration under the ridiculous assumption that criticizing a failing strategy will make the situation “worse”? If I’m a major shareholder and you ruined my portfolio by making a colossal mistake, and you’re continuing to ruin my portfolio in your next stupid strategy, it’s asinine to suggest that I’m the one who’s making the situation worse by speaking up about your incompetence. But hey, if Republicans wish to go down this route, then be my guest. But I implore you, please pick up a history book before you stick your foot in your mouth: My god the man is prophetic. Edit: Wait a minute ... did Delay really say that the Americans were responsible for the genocide??? LOL bring on the 527s!!!

I'm not trying to disagree with the statement. I'm just saying that it's also silly to think that Kerry's statements will have no impact. The leader has a responsibility to be honest and forthcoming, but he should also try to convey that message while at the same time not doing anything detrimental to morale. Yes, Dubya says things in Iraq are going well--perhaps better than they really are, but he has never said that it wouldn't be a difficult task. Maintaining an upbeat tone while still being honest is much more productive than being honest and simultaneously sending a negative message. I do like to compare the government/president to a corporation, but the lines blur a bit when you broach the subject of war. I get the impression that Kerry would have us believe that Bush is the equivalent of Baghdad Bob.

I would've though you were too busy dealing with the Fannie Mae fallout, Occ! They're making Freddie look like the poster child of honest accounting!

Last edited by Shakka on Sep-24-2004 at 19:05

prophetic equations to two very different campaigns? i guess? reaching IMO.

let Kerry say whatever he wants. Shakka is right when he says Kerry is responsible to the people as their prophetic Commander-in-Chief.
Commander's-in-Chief do not say things like Kerry is saying.

i realize that he is campaigning, but the voters who take this very seriously are entitled to be critical.

it is a time right now (war and election) we haven't seen the likes of in over three decades. parallels abound.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan This is the America that we live in, increasingly your patriotism is being questioned, fearmongering is the item of the day and for speaking about the truth in Iraq people are being accused of undermining the Iraqi effort. If the Iraqi effort was being done correctly there would be no need for such statements, moreover the terrorists are the one's undermining Iraq along with Iraqis who want the U.S. out last time I checked, not John Kerry patriotic Republicans, wake up. When tactics like these are associated with the Alien and Sedition Acts and the McCarthy Era its very telling.

I have trouble caring about this since I never claimed to be patriotic in the first place. Anyone who thinks that merely because someone chooses to live somewhere that person ought to have strong, unconditional positive feelings about that place and everything associated with it doesn't have reason on their side.

If our troops are so undisciplined that the mere words of a political candidate can adversely affect their performance, then they should be withdrawn immediately because they are too incompetent to perform the task at hand. Furthermore, in my view, if such a situation exists, then it is the fault of the commander in chief for failing to establish a sufficient chain of command to instill an appopriate or even adequate degree of discipline in our troops.

A patriot is someone who protects his country from enemies foreign or domestic. This would include a government. It was done to King George.

The way the media portrays a patriot is someone who doesn't question their government no matter what the issue. But question the government and you are met with ridicule and hatred at the least.

This kind of thinking has a name, it is called mass hysteria.

Join the crowd
Eat the swill

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I'm not trying to disagree with the statement. I'm just saying that it's also silly to think that Kerry's statements will have no impact. The leader has a responsibility to be honest and forthcoming, but he should also try to convey that message while at the same time not doing anything detrimental to morale. Yes, Dubya says things in Iraq are going well--perhaps better than they really are, but he has never said that it wouldn't be a difficult task. Maintaining an upbeat tone while still being honest is much more productive than being honest and simultaneously sending a negative message. I do like to compare the government/president to a corporation, but the lines blur a bit when you broach the subject of war. I get the impression that Kerry would have us believe that Bush is the equivalent of Baghdad Bob.

Well fine, I would agree that Kerry's statements might have an impact. But hey even though the truth may hurt, you're still better off knowing the truth than living in a lie that's only going to hurt more in the long run. Bush says that his policies in Iraq are working. He says the situation is stabilizing, and that we should vote for him because the situation in Iraq is improving. Kerry says that's false and that the situation is not improving. But he's not conveying a solely negative message. His message has purpose ... that guy is incompetant and I can do a better job. And if the facts back him up, than he should criticize Bush's policies, and tell us what he would do to improve the situation. Look, Kerry is doing nothing different than what republican leaders in congress did to Clinton in 99. They had a legitimate reason to criticize Clinton policy without being unfairly slandered as "unpatriotic" back then as Kerry does today. And I can't think of anything more inefficient and grossly incompetant in government than politicians shading the truth in order to paint a pretty picture ... no matter the circumstance. Companies do that too, and instead of making them leaner and meaner, they end up being wasteful. The analogy fits perfectly with government. Investors shouldn't have to put up with incompentance and neither should the public. Therefore if Kerry thinks that the situation in Iraq is not improving because of failed policy, and the facts back him up, then he should say exactly what he's saying.

quote:

I would've though you were too busy dealing with the Fannie Mae fallout, Occ! They're making Freddie look like the poster child of honest accounting!

Haha, yea that's probably going to be bad for us too. OFHEO is probably going to come after both of us with fists of fury. I have a friend who just left freddie to work at fannie and everybody over there is asking him about what they can expect. Woohoo at least our stock ended up today

___________________
Retro ...