McCain speaks out against attack ads

[JOFO]

I mean no disrespect to the National Guard, nor those that serve and have served in it. God Bless them and the duty they perform.


Bush unfortunately, is not included in this. He got his daddy to get him out of serving in Vietnam by being in the National Guard, while thousands of others his age did not have that luxury.


Sting2, I have always admired your well thought out and well spoken thoughts here, but I can't believe you still support this president. To each his own...no disrespect.

 

[DaveC]

Bush did serve in the National Guard and I do not think you should be ripping apart his service or the service of anyone else that served in the National Guard.

Nobody's saying that National Guardsmen are not servicemen.

Bush was elected the President of the United States.

More than half the US would tend to disagree with you.

He is the Commander in Chief and in consultation with his advisors to include people like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Condelezza Rice, made the important decision to remove Saddam because of his failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD per the conditions of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire.

So if they weren't disarmed then where are they?

The President had overwhelming approval from the US congress for his actions as well as the support of John Kerry!

Yes, but with the direct stipulation (as stated in the Senate by Kerry himself) that the support was only under the condition that all diplomatic avenues were exhausted, which they clearly were not.

The only thing false about the war in Iraq was Saddam's position that he was in compliance with UN resolutions.

Oh, and those little things called WMD's.

While everyone should salute John Kerry service of 4 MONTHS in Vietnam, eveyone should be mindful of the fact that John Kerry has spent most of his Career in the Senate trying to take money away from the Military.

There are other things that need to have money spent on them besides the military, Sting. Oh, and why is "4 MONTHS" emphasized? Are you saying that it wasn't enough time spent in Vietnam? Oh, wait...how long was Bush over there...?

When Kerry first Campaigned for the Senate in 1984, he campaigned against Weapon Systems that are currently vital to the work are military is doing in Iraq and other places in the world. Kerry was against Weapon systems like the M1 Tank, M2 Bradley, Apache Attack Helicopter, as well as the Patriot Missile.

As I stated above there were better things to spend money on at the time. Communism was already on its way to death and the country was recovering from a particularly bad economic decade. I think perhaps the National Debt, or maybe little things like education were more important than a brand new missile.

Mr. Kerry has not been a Senator that has had a record of fighting hard to get money for the US military or important weapon systems. He has in fact done much of the opposite.

God, you just won't stop with the military will you? I notice that military spending wasn't much of an issue before September 11th, when Georgie Porgie was already "President" and had a majority in Congress.

Mr. Kerry was against the removal of Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991 through the only way possible, the use of military force. If Mr. Kerry had been president back then, not only would Saddam still be in power, he would still be in control of Kuwait and its energy reserves that are so vital to the global economy.

Maybe Kerry felt that military force wasn't necessary. Maybe he felt that US casualties over Texaco's profit margin where not in this country's best interest. And who's to say Saddam would still be in power? If the 1st Gulf War hadn't happened who's to say that he wouldn't have attacked Saudi Arabia, or that Israel wouldn't have attacked?

When it comes to John Kerry's post-Vietnam activities in the 1970s, I'd take George Bush and his controversial Alabama National Guard record any day over John Kerry and his Jane Fonda activities.

That made me laugh. Comparing a war veteran (decorated with the Bronze Star and 3 Purple Hearts, no less) to Jane Fonda is ludicrous. Kerry was against the war because he had been there. He fought on his swift-boat in some of the worst fighting of the entire War. He saw death and bloodshed firsthand. I think he had every right to be against it, as opposed to "President" Bush, who sat on his arse in Alabama and did jack shit, getting stoned out of his tree, cause his dad was important.

Whats really important is what the two men have done in elected office. Bush has supported the military and has had an excellant foreign policy.

A foreign policy that alienates the vast majority of allies and pisses half the country off is "excellent"? I think you'd better look up "excellent" in the dictionary, Sting.

Kerry has done his best to rob the military of some of its best weapons and capabilities as well as having made poor decisions on foreign policy, such as his unwillingness to remove Saddam from Kuwait in 1991.

Nice rhetoric. Kerry has not supported the massive military spending (not "robbing" them, as you so eloquently put it), because maybe he felt that it should not be necessary because the US should not be going to War unless it is necessary. Therefore you really wouldn't need missiles that can go 20,000 miles and it would be an extra expenditure that could be used to actually improve the country for something like Education or Jobs, rather than a big explosive that can kill someone by pressing a button.

Your arguments are full of rhetoric. Please stop with the straw-men.

 

[deep]

Bush did serve in the National Guard and I do not think you should be ripping apart his service ...

Sting do you do a disservice to the memories of the 58000 names on the wall by wanting a Commander in Chief that said.

something along the lines of: ?I wasn?t about to blow out my eardrum with a shotgun, and I didn?t have the option of movig to Canada, so I decided to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes?.... He?s the one who originally made the connection of using the national guard to avoid service in Vietnam.

You choose a coward over a hero?

 

[Diemen]

Originally posted by DaveC
Nice rhetoric. Kerry has not supported the massive military spending (not "robbing" them, as you so eloquently put it), because maybe he felt that it should not be necessary because the US should not be going to War unless it is necessary. Therefore you really wouldn't need missiles that can go 20,000 miles and it would be an extra expenditure that could be used to actually improve the country for something like Education or Jobs, rather than a big explosive that can kill someone by pressing a button.

Your arguments are full of rhetoric. Please stop with the straw-men.

Excellent points.

I would also like to point out that Dick Cheney has supported numerous military cuts as well.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Mods, I have a question. At one time when someone posted the word "creed" it would end up as "c***d," allegedly because of someone's dislike of the band of the same name. So my question is...can we add "verifiably disarm" to the list of censored words, because I'm sure all FYMers could live without ever hearing those two words again.

 

[A_Wanderer]

No way, no matter how much you mock Sting's argument on the basis of a statement "verifiably disarmed" it doesnt make it any less solid, the fact that too often it comes down to such a superfial dismissal says more about those that continue to oppose the invasion than the proponents, it is a clear and concice argument that is backed up by the facts about the regime and the facts that have come to light since about Saddam Husseins posession and ongoing desire to procure Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons. Thank you Sting for maintaining a consistent argument for millitary intervention that made sense to justify the invasion and subsequently remains a proper Casus Beli.

You choose a coward over a hero?

Millitary service does not make a great president. FDR for instance did not serve in the millitary but he was a truly great wartime leader. The Democrats made a point of sidelining millitary service for Bill Clinton its amusing to see them flip flop their opinions on the matter, especially considering George H.W. Bush is a War Hero too so the situation is somewhat the reverse of 1993. If a candidate chooses to make their service central to their campaign then it must be open to scrutiny, this type of politics is dirty and cruel and I hope that it reflects negatively on Bush, I hate the Rove methods used against McCain and really dirty methods should be punished at the ballot box.

 

[nbcrusader]

You choose a coward over a hero?

Wasn't that issue decided with Clinton v. Dole??

 

[ThatGuy]

Were military issues as much in the spotlight now as they were in 1996? Now we have someone in office who procalims himself a "war president," started a preemptive war, and struts around an aircraft carrier in a flightsuit. If Clinton had done that in his first term then yes, it would have been an issue in '96.

In related news, one of the Swift Boat Vets For Truth admits he was less than truthful.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry/

 

[nbcrusader]

And just after the Gulf War: Clinton v. GHWB


when did the dems become hawks?

 

[ThatGuy]

'92 Clinton vs. GHWB: "It's the economy, stupid." War wasn't the issue

And no one's saying that the Deomcrats have become hawks. Picking someone who has a more honorable service record in times of war does not make one hawkish.

 

[Dreadsox]

John Kerry's service should not be an issue, except by soldiers who have served with him, over him, and under him. However, I have a problem when we begin looking at legnth of time in country, ect as some kind of standard.

I applaud Senator McCain, who I believe was completely decimated by the Rove political machine. Senator McCain could have best served his country by joining the Kerry Ticket.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Of course McCain supports Bush. He's a Republican. Surprise, surprise. It also doesn't surprise me that he's speaking out about aspects of his campaign that he doesn't like. I respect the guy's honesty even if I can't share his political views.

Exactly. I hold respect for McCain, too-I don't have to agree wholeheartedly with everything somebody says in order to respect them, I've said that numerous times here, as have some other people.

Also, DaveC...whoa, nice post .

Angela

 

[DaveC]

No way, no matter how much you mock Sting's argument on the basis of a statement "verifiably disarmed" it doesnt make it any less solid, the fact that too often it comes down to such a superfial dismissal says more about those that continue to oppose the invasion than the proponents, it is a clear and concice argument that is backed up by the facts about the regime and the facts that have come to light since about Saddam Husseins posession and ongoing desire to procure Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons. Thank you Sting for maintaining a consistent argument for millitary intervention that made sense to justify the invasion and subsequently remains a proper Casus Beli.

It's a clear and obvious fact that Saddam at one point did want the WMD's. However, no matter what, the US was going into Iraq regardless. The scenarios:

1) Saddam says he has disarmed but keeps the WMD's. Weapons inspectors find them and the US goes in.

2) Saddam says he still has the WMD's and does in fact have them. Iraq is now a threat and the US goes in.

3) Saddam says he has disarmed, has in fact disarmed and keeps the components to prove to the world that he has in fact disarmed. The GWB administration says that "the components mean he's building them" and the US goes in.

4) Saddam says he has disarmed, has in fact disarmed, and gets rid of anything to be used to manufacture the WMD's. The GWB administration says "they're hidden and we have to find them" and the US goes in.

Saddam was in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. How could war possibly have been avoided with the mindset of the GWB administration having already decided that the war was going to occur, just waiting for an opportunity to strike?

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

In related news, one of the Swift Boat Vets For Truth admits he was less than truthful.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry/

Was waiting for this to happen...

 

[ThatGuy]

Some information about Jerome R. Corsi, the co-author of Swift Boat Vet for Truth John E. O'Neill's book Unfit For Command.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

I love your links, ThatGuy.

 

[STING2]

Excellent points.

I would also like to point out that Dick Cheney has supported numerous military cuts as well.

The only cuts that Cheney ever supported was when the military was changing its force structure upon on the end of the Cold War. This was in the 1990s when the Berlin wall had fallen, Germany was re-united, the Soviet Union had collapsed, and Soviet or I should say, former Soviet troops were being withdrawn from Europe. The US Army was no longer going to have as many Active Duty Divisions and so Cheney for example stopped the production of Apache Attack Helicopters because the divisions they would have been used to equip no would soon no longer be in service. At the time Cheney anounced stopping production on this and some other weapon systems, the Army and other services already had the right number of Apache's, M1 Tanks, and Bradley Fighting Vehicles needed to outfit their divisions.

By contrast, John Kerry nearly a decade earlier when many of these weapon systems were just entering production and the Army had either not received any or only a few, tried to block these weapon systems that have proven to be vitally important to the combat power and survivability of US soldiers on the battlefield. If John Kerry had is way back then, the US army would still be fighting with weapon systems from the 1950s and 1960s.

 

[verte76]

Some information about Jerome R. Corsi, the co-author of Swift Boat Vet for Truth John E. O'Neill's book Unfit For Command.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010

Thanks for this. Good grief, did you read what he says about Catholics? Ouch. That's ugly. I respect anyone else's views as long as they respect mine. If they say stuff like this about Catholics and the Pope or whatever, I'll be pissed off big time. They'd better be careful. Catholics are 28% of the electorate and include huge numbers of voters in the swing states. This pisses me off.

 

[ThatGuy]

STING, are you sure it's not because he voted against a single bill in 1990?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kerry-military-votes.html


If you have evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it.

 

[anitram]

In his 11 years in Congress, Cheney only passed two bills, so of course he has a distinguished record on military cuts.

 

[STING2]

DaveC,

I think most Americans respect Bush's service in the National Guard and so should everyone here. Most Americans support are electoral system and the election of George Bush as President in the year 2000. I think the funniest thing would be to see those that attack Bush on the 2000 election see Kerry become President under the same circumstances this year.

In regards to Iraq, the United States and other member states of the UN have spent the past 12 years doing everything they could to achieve the Verifiable Disarmament of Saddam without having to use military force to remove Saddam in order to achieve that goal. Verifiable disarmament is not some difficult task that Saddam was incable of and was accomplished in the 1990s by such countries as Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and South Africa. All achieved verifiable disarmament in under a year or two.

The United States and other member states of the UN has for years, used Sanctions, a Military Embargo, UN inspectors, selective use of military strikes, no-fly zones, as well as strong diplomacy through out the entire region. All of these efforts failed and Saddam's refusal to cooperate with the inspectors and barring them from the country should have been the last straw. Instead, we tried once again to resolve the outstanding problems in issues that the UN inspectors had with Saddam in November 1998 when they were forced to withdraw, but Saddam did nothing to help resolve the issues that existed in 1998 and amazingly claimed that they were no longer a problem or an issue.

Although Saddam was required to verifiably disarm of all WMD including 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of Mustard Gas, hundreds of pounds of Sarin Gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells, when inspectors came back in, in 2002, Saddam simply claimed that he had destroyed these stocks but was unwilling to show any evidence of the destruction and dismantlement of such stocks.

So in light of that fact, please tell me precisely what diplomatic and peaceful actions that could have been done to achieve Verifiable disarmament, in light of everything that had already been tried and failed over the past 12 years? Please be specific and list untried diplomatic efforts and or peaceful actions that would have achieved the goal and requirments of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire and multiple UN resolutions?


John Kerry is the one that has made his military service such a big issue by making it virtually his only qualification to be President. You would have to be living in Siberia not know that John Kerry 35 years ago served on a boat in Vietnam. Naturally, when one spotlights something to that degree, people are going to ask questions about it. As far as his length of service goes, 1 day in Vietnam is honorable, and 4 months, 12 months or 36 months is amazing. Everyone should salute John Kerry and his service in Vietnam. But what John Kerry plans to do as President is what is most important, and his Senate record over the past 20 years is the best indication of what he would be like as President. Just the same, people should be voting for George Bush based on his record as President and that alone.


The Weapon Systems that John Kerry campaigned against in 1984 were vital to this countries National Security and vital to the survivability of US military personal on the battlefield for the past 20 years including right now in Iraq. In 1984, the United States and NATO had the vital responsibility of protecting western Europe from a potential Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion. The Soviet Union itself had a total when mobilized of 206 Armored and Mechanized divisions with nearly 60,000 Main Battle Tanks and supporting armor Artillery and Aircraft. Having weapon systems such as the M1 Tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Apache Helicopter and Patriot Missile were vital to United States and NATO forces in Europe that were numerically outnumbered and needed advanced weaponsystems in order to offset the Warsaw Pacts vast numerical advantage.

After the Cold War these weapon systems have played vital roles in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and other military operations around the world. They have saved an unknowable number of lives, provided the military with a massive increase in combat power and mobility, resulting in swifter military victory's with drastically reduced cuasulties for both the United States, are Allies, civilians in the area and even the enemy itself by bringing about their surrender, do to the odds, , more swiftly.

Having a strong Military with the capability of ensuring National and Global security interest of the United States is the most important among all the priorities that the United States as a country has. The inability to do this as well as deter major war by potential foes, would make it impossible to address any of the other priorties the country has. In regards to the Persian Gulf, the planet as a whole heavily relies on it for energy. The siezure and or sabotage of such energy resources would plunge the entire planet into a crises it has never seen before. When Persian Gulf is stable and oil flows freely and is plentifal, the price of energy drops, and the person that benefits is the person on the bottom of the economic ladder because they are most effected by the cost of energy. Also, when the cost of energy drops, Oil companies are not the ones that benefit. So this idea that this war or the war in 1991 was for Mobile Oil etc is simply empty rhetoric.

On John Kerry's post-Vietnam War activities in the early 1970s, I will admit that despite how revolting I find many of his views and idea's at that time, that it is far less relevant to his Senate Record and current idea's about how to lead the country as President. Even John Kerry has expressed displeasure with some of the things he said and did right after Vietnam.

On the issue of George Bush's foreign policy and whether he has alienated a large number of countries, could you please tell me which countries specifically you think George Bush has alienated?

I remind you that the majority of people in this country supported Operation Iraqi Freedom and 75% of Congress did as well. In addition, George Bush got the United Nations to pass another resolution authorizing the use of military force if Saddam failed to meet his obligations including the verifiable disarmament of all WMD. Resolution 1441 was passed by a 15-0 vote! Even Syria voted for it!

 

[STING2]

STING, are you sure it's not because he voted against a single bill in 1990?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kerry-military-votes.html


If you have evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it.

In John Kerry's campaign for the Senate in 1984, he campaigned on a platform that advocated cancelling a number of weapon systems to include the M1 Tank, M2 Bradley, Apache Attack Helicopter, and the Patriot Missile. The Boston Globe reported this but I do not have an internet link at the moment for that.

In 1984, these weapons had just entered production or were about to enter production and John Kerry wanted to stop it all right there.

By 1990, the Cold War was over and the United States was reducing its military force structure. Cheney stopped production of weapon systems because within a few years there would the divisions they were to be deployed to would not exist. The new military structure though would fully outfitted with all the military equipment that went into production in the Reagan years.

The massive difference with Kerry is, is if his proposed cuts had gone through in 1984, 6 years earlier, the military would have little or none of the key weapon systems it had been developing. By 1990 though, the military had enough of these weapon systems to outfit the new force structure that called for 12 Active Army Divisions as opposed to 18. Cheney simply cut the weapon systems that would have been used to equip the divisions that were going to be disbanded anyways.

The United States reduced its force structure when the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union collapsed because those events drastically changed the level of threat the country and the world faced.

 

[ThatGuy]

So you're voting for Bush because Kerry voted against some defense programs 20 years ago? It seems he's changed his mind since then, anyway.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=147

How do you feel about Bush cutting pay and services for those in the military? Or is it more important to spend money on weapons than on people?

 

[STING2]

So you're voting for Bush because Kerry voted against some defense programs 20 years ago? It seems he's changed his mind since then, anyway.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=147

How do you feel about Bush cutting pay and services for those in the military? Or is it more important to spend money on weapons than on people?

That is definitely not the only reason but it is a very important one. If Kerry had succeeded, are men and women fighting in Iraq today would not have these vital weapon systems. AS I explained before, these weapons were just entering production or about to enter in production around 1984, so that it why it is so significant.

Bush has not cut pay and services for people serving in the military. Bush has given the military its largest pay increase in history! It is true that certain types of pay may have been changed, but any change is offset by the historic increase in over all pay. Guess who my friends currently serving in Iraq are voting for?

George Bush has just proposed that largest defense budget in history in nominal terms(un-adjusted for inflation) of nearly 420 Billion dollars. The military needs lots of money for training, new weapons and pay, and there is not another candidate willing to spend more on the military than George Bush.

 

[ThatGuy]

Fair enough. I'm sorry, I was basing my pay comments on old information about what the White House had planned to do, but then back off from. I had similar figures on VA spending and military housing, but that may be outdated as well.

Still you didn't address the issue of Kerry's military spending record since 1997. Too little too late for you?

 

[Diemen]

Some information about Jerome R. Corsi, the co-author of Swift Boat Vet for Truth John E. O'Neill's book Unfit For Command.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010

I think this needs to come to national attention. If this man is going to publish a book (that's already a #1 seller based on pre-orders) trying to basically ruin a man, we should have the right to know he's a bigotted, arrogant, nasty and petty nutjob who thinks all liberals are anti-American communists.

That link is downright scary. And people complain about Moore being biased.

 

[verte76]

I am seriously thinking of writing a letter to the local newspapers pointing out that this guy is bigoted against Catholics, Muslims, and Lord knows who else. Of course if they put him on the talk shows and he comes out with this in public he's toast. If they really want to blow 28% of the electorate.....they'd better be careful. Grrrr.......

 

[A_Wanderer]

One of the old school "patriots", sadly there are too many nutcases with agendas in this world. Ive said it before and ill say it again, the public deserves intelligent debate - embracing lunatics will only perpetuate ignorance.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Okay, checked out that link...that guy...yeesh... ...

I know this was directed at a particular person on that site, but since it's a stereotype of all liberals...

Perfect Liberal -- lesbian,

Actually, I'm not (but I don't see why it would really matter either way).

self-absorbed,

I can think of a few conservatives that are self-absorbed, too...

hates America,

Quite the contrary-I love this country.

anxious to impose her values on everybody else.

Nope. Everyone's free to choose whether or not they want to agree with what I say. If they do, fine, if they don't, fine.

Also:

? Corsi on Senator "FAT HOG" Clinton: "Anybody ask why HELLary couldn't keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she?"

Wow. Mature, logical response there .

Angela

 

[verte76]

This book thing really disgusts me. It's a mean-spirited, nasty, petty thing to do. It's unfortunate that some people have nothing better to do than spew hate and venom on someone famous. What an hole.