5 Responses to “it will be over in november.”

1. 1 Ken Clark
   10/2/2004 at 9:16 am

   I feel the time it would take to demolish this disingenious comparison would be pretty much wasted. If you’re actually moved by such openly biased rhetoric and unwilling to research the facts yourself, then my pointing out the numerous problems is not going to do anything. I can’t help but point out some of the more glaring problems.

   The 87 billion for Iraq was just one bill that passed Congress; I think the latest figure is around $200 billion.

   The war in Yugoslavia was supported by the international community and was in direct response to actual “ethnic cleansing” (genocide) happening at the time. There wasn’t anything new happening in Iraq, and there were certainly no ties to bin Ladin or al Qaeda (the people who actually attacked us).

   I’m trying to find the number of casualties caused by that action — I’m finding around 1,000 civilian, but can’t find a number for US soldiers lost — but I’m fairly certain that Clinton’s war didn’t cost over 1,000 US deaths.

   Clinton lied to a grand jury about getting a blowjob and was impeached. Bush lied about reasons to take the country to war and is celebrated. Clinton’s embarrassed himself, his family, and the country, but Bush’s result in thousands dead and billions wasted tilting at windmills and creating rather than fighting terrorists.

   The economy was doing far better under Clinton than it has under Bush, but you’ve already made the point that it’s ridiculous to give credit or lay blame on the “cyclical” nature of economies, so you should have left that point out.

   Clinton didn’t call for the bombing of the Chinese embassy. That was a mistake. It’s really disgusting that you would imply that this was intentional or good. It’s also unbelievable that you would claim that it was “bad” that Bush went after the terrorist training camps in Afganistan.

   Jeez, I just sigh when I read crap like this. I would feel more strongly about responding to this if you’d actually come up with the points yourself, but you’re just regurgitating an incendiary political tidbit you thought would tweak us.

   ky

2. 2 Ken Clark
   10/2/2004 at 9:43 am

   Let me get this straight:

   John Kerry volunteers for the Navy during the Vietnam War, takes the very dangerous job of a swift boat captain running missions into enemy-controlled territory, performs valiantly, and recieves lots of medals — bad.

   George W. Bush uses family influence to avoid the draft and get into the Texas Air National Guard to defend the skies of Lubbock against the Viet Cong, quits flying even though the government paid to teach him to fly and he promised to do so for 6 years, and then deserts — good. Oh, and Dick Cheney gets five deferments from the draft (one for college, then he dropped out) — that’s good, too.

   Republican Congressmen spoke out openly against Clinton’s war in Serbia — good.

   Anyone who questions the war in Iraq is labelled “unpatriotic,” “unamerican,” and is accused of supporting terrorists — good, too.

   George H. W. Bush refuses to invade Iraq at the end of the first Gulf war to depose Saddam Hussein (even after fomenting a popular uprising) because he didn’t have a clear exit strategy — good.

   George W. Bush invades Iraq without a clear exit strategy or a plan to win the peace — oh, well, again, that’s good.

   Clinton is able to keep North Korea’s nuclear capabilities in check with diplomacy — bad.

   Bush cuts of diplomatic ties with North Korea and now they have nuclear weapons and the missiles capable of launching them into the US — good.

3. 3 hempstead
   10/2/2004 at 9:08 pm

   Jeez, I just sigh when I read crap like this. I would feel more strongly about responding to this if you’d actually come up with the points yourself, but you’re just regurgitating an incendiary political tidbit you thought would tweak us.

   holy freaking crap!!!
   isnt that the pot calling the kettle black?
   you have an incredible ability to regurgiate s that refute honest heartfelt opinions of a registered voter and yet you turn around and sigh when the same tactic is thrown back in your face.
   you sound more and more like the grasshopper every time you type.
   isnt it possible that everything you read is incendiary political tidbits and you just cant see it?

   do you think this is going to end?
   do you think that the media will somehow stop brainwashing you?
   do you think it really matters if bush or kerry is in office?

   i am convinced that the partisan bullshit that exists today will be the downfall of democracy as we know it.
   for what its worth, i didnt care that clinton was in office for eight years. i wont care either that bush is in office for eight years. and whoever the next guy or ex-firstlady is will certainly stir up all this rhetoric once again in 2007.
   its a freaking load of crap. whatever the harpers and harvard and tv and ny times tell you is what youll see. thats that. everything else doesnt happen cause you dont have proof.
   your proof is what you read in media outlets.
   thats all you got. you cite other peoples misguided crap.
   of course your stuff is truth and everbody elses are incendiary political tidbits.

4. 4 Ken Clark
   10/3/2004 at 9:09 pm

   It’s hard to know how to react. I came off as attacking you personally, I think, instead of what I saw as a blatantly partisan comparison of Bush to Clinton and Kerry — one that portrayed almost everything done by the latter (Democrats) as bad, and everything done by the former (a Republican) as good. Further, you’ve hardly backed down from supporting Bush even when you acknowledge that he’s lied about why we went to war, so I don’t really find your claims to be non-partisan all that sincere. While you don’t always claim that Republicans are always right, you seem to feel that Bush is and that Democrats are universally wrong.

   BTW, if you can spare about 30 minutes, here’s a fairly in-depth review of the debate over the aluminum tubes that pretty much led us directly to war:

   http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?ei=1&en=c8b1d940a7b425cc&ex=1097746395&pagewanted=all&position=?NYT_REG_SYSTEM_IS_A_POX_ON_DECENCY

   If you don’t have the time, then the executive summary is that all the very good arguments about why the tubes were unsuited for use in producing nuclear weapons were kept from the public and Congress. Powell, Cheney, and Bush all knew that there were alternative uses for the tubes, namely to make missle launchers. Also, the tubes constituted the only physical evidence the administration had, and that was apparently enough to invade another country. Lastly, while Saddam has tried in the past to create nuclear weapons, apparently the sanctions and inspections since the last Gulf war were completely working to keep those aspirations in check.

   I make a solid attempt most every day to engage my local newspaper (Dallas Morning News), National Public Radio, and on-line news sources (WA Post, NY Times, Boston Globe) to get the day’s event. So, yes, I do get my information through media outlets because I don’t have access to the DC policymakers or the battles in Iraq. I also make an attempt to be familiar with special reports like the 9/11 commission’s, as well as history, e.g., “The Fog of War,” which I’ve mentioned repeatedly and have beseeched you to watch because of the parallels to Iraq. In all of this, I try to digest everything and make informed decisions. I’m not regurgitating whole missives against the current administration, and, in fact, I spend hours on some of my replies. Do admit, at least, that I have often given Bush credit for the good moves I feel he’s made. Still, it’s no secret that I think he’s pretty much a lying power-hungry war monger who wants to control Middle East oil.

   What I was also trying to attack was that you just posted the contents of an e-mail JJ forwarded to you. Did you really think this was going to go uncommented upon? I refuse to let arguments be won by the person who screams the loudest or who makes the most preposterous claims. Every time you post something where I see gross factual errors (which I pointed out and which you didn’t refute), I’m going to comment. This isn’t a personal attack against you, just against what I see as un/half-truths that you’re circulating. I’ve given up thinking that your mind can be changed. I know you’re voting for Bush in November, and you know I’m voting against Bush by voting for Kerry. So I guess all that’s left is to debate the finer points and become further entrenched.

   Even when I come off as an assh*le (which probably I am), please believe I’m not trying to be. But how do you expect me to react when you post something that satirically claims that it was merely “bad” when the WTC came down while Bush was in office. It was a grotesque and thoroughly horrid moment in history that doesn’t deserve such flippant treatment.

5. 5 hempstead
   10/4/2004 at 9:18 am

   actually, i am still looking for a better candidate than both bush and kerry.
   how sad is that?