posted on February 13, 2004 09:30:28 AM new "And then you ultra lefties, anti-war, have the nerve to say our intelligence was faulty.....all because of liberals like Kerry. They're who we can thank for the lapses in our intelligence."
Linda, you suffer from lapses also...in logic and those episodes are becoming more frequent. it's the president who is faulty. His interpretation of intelligence is beyond faulty. It's deliberately false.
Then you make the preposterous statement that "the liberals are responsible for intelligence lapses?" Tell me, linda...Exactly how does that happen?
Is a liberal helping Bush read and interpret intelligence?
posted on February 13, 2004 05:56:28 PM newConservatives Shine Spotlight on Kerry's Antiwar Record
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: February 13, 2004 New York Times
ASHINGTON, Feb. 12 — Ted Sampley, a retired Green Beret who runs a Web site for veterans devoted to defeating John Kerry, says he spent months looking for a photograph of Mr. Kerry and Jane Fonda, the actress whose antiwar protests still evoke bitter memories. Then, last week, a message from a stranger arrived by e-mail, telling him precisely where he could find one.
......
He is not the only one. With Mr. Bush answering questions about his National Guard service, conservatives are working hard to shine an unflattering spotlight on Mr. Kerry's antiwar activities and his record on military and intelligence matters in the Senate.
Commentators, including Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, have been talking up the Fonda photograph.
National Review has a cover article entitled "The Senator's Other War Record." It says Mr. Kerry, who returned from Vietnam a highly decorated veteran and then led protests against the war, "helped to slander a generation of soldiers who had done their duty with honor and restraint." The Weekly Standard is highlighting a 1971 book co-written by Mr. Kerry, "The New Soldier," which commemorated a march on Washington by Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
And on Thursday, a new photograph of the senator and the actress began circulating via e-mail. Unlike the image Mr. Sampley bought, which shows Mr. Kerry seated several rows behind Ms. Fonda, this picture — its origins are unclear — shows them side by side, Ms. Fonda behind a microphone and Mr. Kerry, holding a notebook, to her right.
In a sense, the examination of Mr. Kerry's record as a war protester is the mirror image of the Democrats' focus on Mr. Bush's military record.
.....
But just as Mr. Kerry has organized fellow Vietnam veterans on his behalf, the president's re-election campaign is putting together "a very strong organization of veterans in support of President Bush," a campaign spokesman, Scott Stanzel, said. One of them, Joe Repya, a retired Army lieutenant colonel from Minnesota, says he has been writing letters to newspaper editors defending Mr. Bush. He said none had been published so far.
At the same time, Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, has been giving speeches around the country detailing Mr. Kerry's votes on military and intelligence programs, including his 1984 opposition to the missile defense program promoted by Ronald Reagan and his 1991 Senate vote opposing the use of force in Iraq.
"John Kerry has a history of hypocrisy on defense issues," said a spokeswoman for the committee, Christine Iverson. She said Mr. Kerry's "rhetoric as a presidential candidate does not match his record as a United States senator."
Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster, said Republicans believed Mr. Kerry's Senate votes would be a "potentially very potent" issue against him. "You could not ask for a clearer contrast with a Republican position than that entire array of issues over 20 years," he said.
Bill Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, which ran the article about Mr. Kerry's 1971 book, said he did not believe voters would pay much heed to what either Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry did more than three decades ago. "This election will turn on the war in Iraq, not on the war in Vietnam," Mr. Kristol said.
Even so, Jane Fonda still draws the ire of some veterans. She earned the nickname [b]Hanoi Jane for her 1972 trip to North Vietnam, where she criticized the United States government over Hanoi Radio.
The photograph with Mr. Kerry was taken two years earlier. But it brings up deep memories for people like Mr. Sampley, who said he had been seething for years over Mr. Kerry's protests, including one in which he threw away his ribbons and some war medals, though not his own. Mr. Sampley publishes an Internet newspaper for veterans; two weeks ago, he established a Web site, www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com.
"Jane Fonda, to Vietnam vets is the symbol of all this," said Mr. Sampley, who says he is not supporting any presidential candidate, including President Bush. "That's why they don't want these pictures out, and that's why, I'm sure, some other people want them out."
posted on February 13, 2004 06:17:28 PM new
yeah...right. LOL
Anyone who can read, or listen, will soon be seeing for themselves how different what Kerry's saying is compared to how he actually voted. No drivel here...just the facts will be shown.
Mr. Kerry's "rhetoric as a presidential candidate does not match his record as a United States senator."
You know Pat....saying one thing....doing another. There will be many voters who the truth WILL make a difference in how believable they think Kerry is.....should he even take the dem nomination. That's really not a given yet.
posted on February 13, 2004 06:30:12 PM new
Right, Linda. The truth about Bush's cushy Nat'l Guard slot and the truth that he couldn't be bothered to show up for a good portion of it is causing a whole lot of voters to question their support of him.
Just as Bush's lies about why we went to war in Iraq are making a tremendous difference in how believable voters think he is.
Your man, your party, is on the run; it is to be hoped that they run around with blinders on the way you do, and that they'll only perceive the big wall just ahead after they've smashed into it head-on.
posted on February 13, 2004 07:03:56 PM new
Accusations only Pat....NO PROOF. That's the problem....NO PROOF. But sure you guys buy into it. It's easy to make any accusation.
The fun hasn't even begun yet. It won't start until the dems decide which 'double talker' they're going to have represent their side. Then the real fun will begin. And the numbers they will be a changin' as the Bush/Chaney ticket starts their campaigning and showing PROOF of how the dems talk out of both sides of their mouths.
posted on February 13, 2004 07:14:49 PM new
Gad, Linda, do you really believe even half the things you say?
Bush just released some of the "proof" this afternoon. Go read it.
Krs was right; you are dumber than a box of rocks...
posted on February 13, 2004 08:13:36 PM new
oh pat, you disappoint me. lol
Seems when those who have nothing to offer while holding an opposite position, they always resort to the insults...rather than sticking to the debate....now you have too.
What in the world makes you think I give even a tiny bit of value to what krs thinks/thought? LOL that's a blast from the past. And if memory serves me correctly it was YOU who left this board in a huff because of your disagreements with him. Saying something along the line of 'this board isn't a healthy place to be'.
I provide balance here to the ultra liberal views most post. Makes you guys/gals aware that you live in a 'private world' here, not really in touch/tune with how the majority of American's think and feel.
That's why the insults continue to fly at those of us who support this president. Reality that others see and think differently than you appears too much to accept...but it is a reality of our country.
posted on February 14, 2004 11:33:05 AM new
helen - You speaking for other posters now?
I think Pat is quite capable of speaking for herself. And unless she's hired you to speak for her, why don't you practice minding your own business and learn the skill of butting out of conversations between other posters when they don't involve you nor the thread topic.
It doesn't matter if they were/are friends, you don't see her denying what I've stated do you? Maybe her memory is much better than yours. Some people have the ability to disagree on topics and still remain friends. Although I've longed since learned that's not a skill you possess.
posted on February 14, 2004 12:03:29 PM new
Linda,
I did not intend to speak in Pat's defense. What a silly assumption for you to make. I pointed out that mistake because you repeatedly make similar wrong assumptions about my motives and statements.
I'll be the judge of when and where I make my posts, linda.
I'll never be your friend, Linda. You alone may claim that distinction.
posted on February 14, 2004 12:14:46 PM new
Linda, from time to time I get tired of explaining things to you. That's when, out of sheer exasperation, I call you an idiot. But, truly, it is a much more epedient way of doing so than refuting your skewed reasoning and interpretations of the "news" with views you can't understand because they're not your own.
Another wrong idea... You say, "Some people have the ability to disagree on topics and still remain friends. Although I've longed since learned that's not a skill you possess. "
I have at one time or another disagreed with many people that I admire. I would certainly like to call those people friends. Just to name a few, I've disagreed with Pat, krs, bunnicula, ...the list is long. But I admire all of those people very much and would like to call them my friend even though at one time or another I've disagreed with them. So, chalk up another wrong assumption or judgement on your part, linda.
posted on February 15, 2004 12:27:19 AM newI did not intend to speak in Pat's defense. What a silly assumption for you to make.
No assumption, you did say my memory wasn't correct. But you will note that pat doesn't deny it herself.
I pointed out that mistake because you repeatedly make similar wrong assumptions about my motives and statements. Yes....new game here huh? I have never made wrong assumptions about your motives or your statements. It's just hard to prove them with all the millions of edited, hours later, days later posts you continually revise or erase.
I'll never be your friend, Linda. You alone may claim that distinction. THANK GOD FOR SMALL FAVORS My heart is soooo broken.....not!!!!
--------------
Linda, from time to time I get tired of explaining things to you. Gee pat who gave you all the answers??? I sure don't recall EVER asking you to explain things to me. You make statements....I ususally disagree and say so. I never expect an explaination....it would just be wasting you time and mine.
That's when, out of sheer exasperation, I call you an idiot.
Gee I'm sorry you never learned self control...self moderation. That's a shame at your age. Just a reminder for you...there is an ignore button.
[i]than refuting your skewed reasoning and interpretations of the "news" with views you can't understand because they're not your own.
Idiot Idiot Idiot[/i]! Oh, how mature you are. But you started a whole thread with me in mind....for what purpose??? To have me state my views so you can insult them, rather than state your disagreement with them? A set up huh? Yep...sure looks like you can't handle those with opposing views. Too bad....so sad.
