Bush Likens Americans to Terrorists... Sickening.

[jerseyhoya34]

""Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." "

This is absolutely disgusting... Too bad there wasn't a mission accomplished banner to accompany this speech.

[hoyarooter]

And "we" are doing a first-rate job at it, too! Another classic Bushism.

[thebin]

You think a slip of the tongue is not merely funny or perhaps even embarrassing, but you would go so far as to jump to "absolutely disgusting?" Jersey- you have frankly no credibility on political issues if you are this easily "disgusted." Your posts really are not even worth reading anymore. There is no chance that your posts will be at all balanced or nuanced or shed any light on anything. Hell, you won't even get tips on fresh news- this is several days old.

[jerseyhoya34]

I realize that it is another Bushism, but one would have thought that he would have stopped himself before saying this. I happened to get a laugh out of it myself, but it is embarassing to me that we have a President who cannot answer questions on tribal sovereignty without getting laughs in an audience and cannot speak in a way that incorporates much by way of policy content.

Incidentally, it is interesting to me that you criticize me for not being nuanced but in other posts, you criticize Kerry for being a nuanced candidate. Which do you prefer? I just assumed that you didn't like nuance considering you made comments that you nearly puked when Carter addressed the subject of strength abroad, which seems to indicate a preference of using only arms as a means toward building strength rather than some of the more sophisticated instruments in our arsenal, such as political culture, economic power, and so forth. Perhaps you could clear that up for me.

Also, I will be balanced and will give credit where it is due. For example, I like John McCain and supported him in 2000. Unfortunately, I think his party has taken an unfortunate turn to the right to the degree that it has abandoned folks who are looking for change and reform. Folks like Giuliani, Pataki, and McCain are guys who I think are for good government and who, on balance, have been positive. Unfortunately, they do not agree with President Bush on many issues and don't represent the party of George Bush other than to make Bush seem more acceptable.

Perhaps worse than this is that you attack my credibility on political issues without offering a single thing to back up that sweeping claim. Am I wrong to suggest that Bush has flip-flopped on political issues? It is a fairly serious charge that you make and one that I hope you are not making without having something in mind to back it up. It is a particularly startling charge coming from someone who often cites the Drudge Report (which is wrong 70% of the time) and who said that Sandy Berger should go to jail when in fact the investigation found that his actions did not affect the materials available to the 9/11 Commission. Talk about getting something wrong in every way imaginable...

[thebin]

I don't fault Kerry for being nuanced. I fault him for running on four months of combat in a war he detested, and returned from to call all his brothers in arms war criminals. And I fault him for running away from his long Senate record- because it is the record of just about the last man in American the average citizen wants to hand the keys to the Pentagon to. I have never seen a candidate with such a long policy record run a campaign where that record is referred to less. Kerry appears to have no principles that are not expendable. I disagree with Bush in a lot of policy issues, but I like the fact that he sticks to them when shedding them might appeal to swing voters. That is called leadership. Kerry has spent the 6 months or so running as far from his legislative record as possible on national security. You call that "nuance." I call it something else.


Its funny how little you understand what the Drudgereport is and what it isn't. Have you ever used it? Do you know what it is? Do understand that literally 99% of the stuff on that site is links to other news sources- mostly mainstream sources like city dailies, and news wire services? People from all political stripes use the web site because Drudge is plugged in to many sources in the media and in politics- and often can give average Americans with no wire services access at work a huge jump on a story that they otherwise would not hear for hours or perhaps days. As a consequence, many of the stories fall apart before the mainsteam source runs with them. People who frequent the site understand this. They know that these are unconfirmed reports coming ALMOST ALWAYS FROM SOURCES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MATT DRUDGE HIMSELF. They know how to use Drudge and how not to. You don't have a clue what the site is all about despite the fact that you love to hate it. Its not a source, its a source of sources, that must be understood to be useful and does not aim for accuracy foremost in the way the traditional media does- it aims to release things first even if they are not yet confirmed, and does so an alarming number of times. And the first thing you would learn about the site is that Drudge is just as happy to report good and bad news- for left and right alike. He just wants the scoop. He often gets it- he often links something that later falls apart. Everyone but you seems to understand that when someone links Drudge- its a tip on something we know might not pan out. But it often does. And I don't lkink Drudge anywhere near as much as I do in your imagination by the way. Drudgereport is a useful tool- if you know its limitations- the links are often ultimately wrong in some way in having incomplete info- but rarely are they totally wrong even though they alwayd count it is always wrong ifits partially wrong or incomplete. You railing against the Drudgereport is like me saying Vegas oddsmakers have no clue because the Pats didn't beat the Packers by the predicted 3.5 points. You just don't undertand the point of the site. Drudge's politics mean everything on his radio show- which I have never heard, the mean almost nothing on his website.

Carter was not merely a failure of a president in terms of maintaining or projecting hard power- he was in every respect one of the least leaders in the history of the Republic. Oh, and did yo know he also mis-pronounced "NuKUlar?" And he studied nuclear reactors at Annapolis. He was elected because after Watergate, America wanted a nothing president- and that is exactly what they got.

From what I understand, Berger should absolutely go to jail. Its hard to know because as I predicted, the press backed off of that startling story really quickly- far too quickly. As far as I know, there is NO DEBATE WHATSOEVER as to whether he illegally removed and destroyed classified documents. The commission did NOT recuse him of that, did it?

You damaged your own credibility, not me, when you called a slip of the tongue "absolutely disgusting." Not really any room to manuever from that corner is there?

[showcase]

Not meaning to invite fire in this Editeding contest, but I'd like to interject that while Drudge isn't a "news source" per se, and therefore is not held to the standards one would expect of a traditional source, people often treat it as if it were a quasi-news source, and that's the problem.

It's a problem because there's no accountability. Take for example the Kerry Intern Expose: the blurb ended with Drudge's omnipresent "developing..." and then the issue vanished like a fart in the wind. Now, because Drudge isn't a "news source," he can go with forward on a story with sources that wouldn't otherwise satisfy a traditional journalist's standards. But I've never heard of a Drudge mea culpa. If there's no accountability, stories of this type is, in the end, nothing more than rumor-mongering.

But the other type of "story" Drudge provides is generally no better. Drudge "scoops" invariably present a far more salacious spin on what's actually forthcoming. Now, I appreciate why he does this, and that because it's not "News" pre se, it's not really a problem. But on the other hand, I frequently hear that the stories of this sort that first appear on Drudge (or other "quasi-news" sites) were somehow watered-down or deep-sixed by the liberal press as an excuse for why they failed to live up to Drudge's initial billing. That's an assertion that cannot be easily refuted, since it turns on secondary assumptions regarding facts that cannot be proven. The by-product of this is that the slant pumped by Drudge becomes quasi-fact, without the nuisance of having been subjected to the rigors of objective scrutiny. I mean, Drudge can toss out any story he wants, claim to have unnamed sources & that the story is developing, and as long as something even remotely resembling the tale comes out, people are willing to assume much of the rest is true (and will either be forthcoming or won't because the mainstream press backed off).

I understand perfectly well what the DrudgeReport is and does. What I think JH34 is objecting to is the apparently willingness in some appear to give the site more credit than it deserves.

Just my $.02, didn't mean to hijack the thread.

[jerseyhoya34]

thebin said:

1. I don't fault Kerry for being nuanced. I fault him for running on four months of combat in a war he detested, and returned from to call all his brothers in arms war criminals. And I fault him for running away from his long Senate record- because it is the record of just about the last man in American the average citizen wants to hand the keys to the Pentagon to. I have never seen a candidate with such a long policy record run a campaign where that record is referred to less.

2. Its funny how little you understand what the Drudgereport is and what it isn't. Have you ever used it? Do you know what it is? Do understand that literally 99% of the stuff on that site is links to other news sources- mostly mainstream sources like city dailies, and news wire services? People from all political stripes use the web site because Drudge is plugged in to many sources in the media and in politics- and often can give average Americans with no wire services access at work a huge jump on a story that they otherwise would not hear for hours or perhaps days. As a consequence, many of the stories fall apart before the mainsteam source runs with them. People who frequent the site understand this. They know that these are unconfirmed reports coming ALMOST ALWAYS FROM SOURCES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MATT DRUDGE HIMSELF. They know how to use Drudge and how not to. You don't have a clue what the site is all about despite the fact that you love to hate it. Its not a source, its a source of sources, that must be understood to be useful and does not aim for accuracy foremost in the way the traditional media does- it aims to release things first even if they are not yet confirmed, and does so an alarming number of times. And the first thing you would learn about the site is that Drudge is just as happy to report good and bad news- for left and right alike. He just wants the scoop. He often gets it- he often links something that later falls apart. Everyone but you seems to understand that when someone links Drudge- its a tip on something we know might not pan out. But it often does. And I don't lkink Drudge anywhere near as much as I do in your imagination by the way. Drudgereport is a useful tool- if you know its limitations- the links are often ultimately wrong in some way in having incomplete info- but rarely are they totally wrong even though they alwayd count it is always wrong ifits partially wrong or incomplete. You railing against the Drudgereport is like me saying Vegas oddsmakers have no clue because the Pats didn't beat the Packers by the predicted 3.5 points. You just don't undertand the point of the site. Drudge's politics mean everything on his radio show- which I have never heard, the mean almost nothing on his website.

From what I understand, Berger should absolutely go to jail. Its hard to know because as I predicted, the press backed off of that startling story really quickly- far too quickly. As far as I know, there is NO DEBATE WHATSOEVER as to whether he illegally removed and destroyed classified documents. The commission did NOT recuse him of that, did it?

You damaged your own credibility, not me, when you called a slip of the tongue "absolutely disgusting." Not really any room to manuever from that corner is there?

1. You don't fault Kerry for being nuanced... You do fault him for allegedly flip-flopping on issues such as trade where he comes across as protectionist whereas he voted for NAFTA, among other trade agreements. I do not know what you define as nuanced in your statement, so I'll leave it alone, but I think you know that you have hammered him on alleged flip-flops which may be construed by me as more nuances than changes of position, which may be the case with the Iraq war.
John Kerry's choice of words was perhaps too harsh in that interview with Meet the Press, but one has to ask whether he was right. Did the US violate the Geneva Conventions in Vietnam? In his Congressional testimony, he relayed what was reported to him in what was called the Winter Soldier Investigation. In his speech, he was referring to events, including My Lai, some of which did occur. So, do not let an unfortunate choice of words obfuscate an important part of our involvement in Vietnam, which included terrible policies that harmed, if not targeted, civilians.
I do frequently go to Drudge and agree that most of it is links to existing stories, but you've had a knack for running with things before they hit the mainstream or before confirmation, such as the Kerry-Intern thing, which was wrong (and, in fairness to you, you did point out the lack of confirmation at the time). However, you have run with things that lacked similar disclosure, such as the alleged quote where Teresa Heinz Kerry said she didn't trust Ted Kennedy. I read the interview, and Heinz Kerry said something along the lines of, "If X, then I don't trust Ted Kennedy." In my view, this instance was a misuse of Drudge.
I happen to disagree with you regarding whether his politics shine through on the website. If they did not, how would you know them enough to say that they shine through on his radio show. I do read many of his stories, and more often than not, he displays something that twists the story to be anti-Kerry or Dem or chooses something to highlight that is anti-Kerry when in fact the story may not be so. In doing so, he draws attention to something that otherwise would not have gotten press.
On the subject of Berger... " But days ago, The Wall Street Journal reported, “Officials looking into the removal of classified documents from the National Archives by former Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel Berger say no original materials are missing and nothing Mr. Berger reviewed was withheld from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks….The conclusion by archives officials and others would seem to lay to rest the issue of whether any information was permanently destroyed or withheld from the commission.”" He did not destroy the materials because no original materials are missing. If you are upset by this, (I know you won't take the bait, but it is worth repeating) it is pretty inconsistent to not show an interest in resolving the Plame Affair because that involved possibly jeopardizing CIA officers in the field.
On my use of "politically disgusting," it was with absolute sarcasm, which was evidently not conveyed on this message board. I have long been upset by Bush et al. who try to portray Dems as those who blame America and who are moral relativists when it comes to terrorism. The fact that you took it literally is perhaps my fault because sarcasm is rarely clear on message boards.

[Z]

just hopping in here to point out the intellctual dishonesty of the now ubiquitous refrain that "kerry only served 4 months" in vietnam. before actually entering vietnam, he trained for approximately 10 months, then served aboard a USS battleship providing direct support to the war effort for 4 months (including time spent in the gulf of tonkin). then following his time on the swift boat, he served for 9 months in the states before getting his discharge. not exactly a "hit and run" soldier who made an unsually brief commitment to the armed forces.

but i guess when you resort to nasty smears regarding one's service record, its a bit much to hope that the smearers might be contextually accurate. (thebin, i'm not directing this last statement at you, but others on the right who have engaged in such behavior).

[thebin]

Z- he spent four months in combat. That is I hope, 4 months more than you or I ever have to- but its the truth and the distinction is important because afterall Bush also "served" but not in combat. Kerry is sure making a lot of his service so he invites the scrutiny. Its also worth noting that he took a very quick discharge as soon as eligible, something officers are not really expected to do- with the help of some questionable purple hearts. If he is going to run on his war record, and he sure as hell tried to in Boston, then this is all fair game. As the fact remains that almost every other swift boat commander is against the man to say the least. If Swift boat captains have such great judgement.... If he wasn't running his Vietnam record so hard to try to out-GOP Bush, then no, there would be nothing noteworthy here and nothing fair game. This is like giving Bennet crap for the legal gambling he engaged in- its only warranted because of who he is and what he has traditionally stressed.

Jer34- I certainly picked up no strains of sarcasm whatever. If you meant it, than my comments on their face don't stand. I know Drudge is conservative because he is a famous conservative talk radio guy- I don't need to hear that to believe it. I trust that info.

Showcase- I think your arguement fails because in my experience killing time on DR, he is just as willing to run with a story that is bad for the right as the left. Its journalistic junk food- but it quite often breaks big stories. Like I said, being used to having access to news wires at work- I am hooked on the timlieness of it, and I surely understand its greatr limitations. I also really don't think I have ever linked it without prefacing it with.... "If this stands to scrutiny" or something like it. And I did that even assuming that everyone knew Drudge stories often fell apart.

Scarecrow- I am going to miss you most of all!

[jerseyhoya34]

I think it is unfortunate that Republicans are questioning the military when it comes to its awarding of medals to John Kerry. Why isn't Dubya running on his distinguished service in Alabama? The fact is that the debate about service is on Kerry's side.

You mention that Kerry is running too much on service instead of his record. It is a good point, but Kerry did draw attention during the convention to important parts of his service in Congress. Most importantly, in my view, is his efforts with McCain to find out about POW/MIA in Vietnam and to bring about peace/normalized relations with that country. I view that as somewhat significant given our present need to bring about a lasting peace in Iraq with some level of international reconciliation with Iraqis themselves, and to a larger degree among citizens of the world at large.

Another thing about Kerry is that he is a junior Senator in the Senatorial minority. So, he does not have any major league committee assignments and the Majority isn't likely to allow a bill from any Dem Senator to gain national prominence let alone debate time on the floor in this political climate.

That considered, Bill Clinton made an important point in his speech which was that Kerry is willing to do the dirty work, such as the POW/MIA investigation, volunteering for duty in the Mekong, etc., which speaks to his willingness to serve and to take on challenge with grace and success.