Robertson endorses assassinating Chavez

[registerthis]

Oh, yes. I have heard through the internet that the last Bush family reunion included goose-stepping, swastikas and chants of "Heil Hitler". But I do not want to sttttrrrrreeeetttttcccchhhhh things. Nor would I hold something against a person due to actions of ONE family member. But such is life on the other side of the fence. No pics of Prescott and Hitler shaking hands (ala Rummy and Sddam)? I am surprised.

Did you even read the article? You're simply posting nonsense, as he essentially vindicates Prescott Bush. Then again, you're so dead set on finding something wrong with the piece that...well, you didn't read it and simply ASSUMED what it said, didn't you?

Still waiting on evidence to refute anything in either of the two pieces I've posted.

<waits>

Then again, when someone doesn't have any facts/evidence to support their position, it's always good to resort to smart-alecky statements.

[westofyou]

Prescott's involvement with Nazi finance is more complicated.

FDR's daddy made a bundle in the opium trade, George Walker Bush was saved from the ocean by a rope made of "hemp", Lindberg was a Natzi and on and on and on.

This stuff is as old as the sun and moon, power corrupts.

[RedFanAlways1966]

Then again, when someone doesn't have any facts/evidence to support their position, it's always good to resort to smart-alecky statements.

No problem. I will step-aside. No sense in creating friction.

I still find the whole Robertson-Chavez issue ridiculous. Both of these men should be put into a cage-wrestling-match thing. Or perhaps an Ultimate Death Match. I might actually pay money to watch that!

Nice points, woy. And most of us know about the days of old with the "original Kennedy".

[Rojo]

And I can understand your distaste and apathy towards that since you weren't old enough to not only experience it, but that it didn't effect you personally, since you weren't in the miltary at the time.

No. I wasn't old enough to experience it but my thoughts on the war in Vietnam are more complicated than you imagine. I was born in the Naval Hospital in Beaufort, S.C. in 1968. My dad was a Marine who got his orders to go to Vietnam the day I was born. I spent the first couple of years of my life living with my grandparents in Atlanta and the next 15 living on military bases. Growing up, the shadow of Vietnam was just a few beers away. I heard stories about kids in Vietnam selling Cokes filled with battery acid to G.I.s, booby-trapped old ladies and spitting civlians. I was imbued with a hatred of self-righteous, indulgent hippies. Yet, I came to the conclusion that the war was a bad idea, even if the soldiers, like my dad, were not. And that's why I admire someone like John Kerry. He consistently did the right thing, not the ingratiating thing. He served when called and called B.S. when he got back.

I had a fundamentalist Christian friend a few years ago who told me that the thing that will bind you to your friends are shared values. At the time I thought that was crap. This was during the Bush I years when the Right was busy coining the term "family values", so I tuned out. But now I realize he was right. Most of my friends and family do have similar values. Kerry put his money where his mouth was. That to me is character. To others, I suppose, cheerleading and deference to authority are far more important and that's where they and I part company.

[GAC]

GAC,

Sorry, but I said all along I know what a CHICKENHAWK is. I did not define it earlier as you say I did. I just said I know one when I see one. Just because you have defined it one way to suit you and support your HATERED for John Kerry/Bill Clinton/Al Gore does not make how I define it wrong.

And yes, if your are beating your chest for this war in Iraq and of military age and able, you should be clicking on the link below.

Nobody who suopports this war is beating on their chest in support of this war.

Fully understand the implications of this war and what has to/needs to be achieved. I beleived back as far as the ealr 90's, after we didn;t finish the job in the first place and left him in power, his attempts to distablilize the Middle East and attacks on Israel, along with the rise if Islamic terrorism attacks, that this confrontation was enivitable. Didn't look forward to it at all. And look forward to when it ends.

[Falls City Beer]

So I guess it all boils down to who you want to believe.

No. No, it doesn't.

It boils down to truth and falsehood.

[GAC]

the difference there, though, is that Michael Moore, Soros and MoveOn weren't working for the Kerry campaign.

Ah c'mon Ben. They were all heavy contributors to his campaign, and yes, in a "roundabout" way were working "for" the Kerry campaign. But if you are gonna use that analogy then neither was Swift Boat. Friends and contributors to the Bush campaign? Sure. But not working directly for them. Just as the others were for Kerry. Respectfully - simply semantics. That's like someone getting someone to do your dirty work for you, in an inadvertant kind of way, and then standing on the podium with a halo over your head saying "they don't work FOR me, or represent our business" (while at the same time you're glad of their help).

Both the Bush and Kerry campaigns did this. Smear campaigns, IMO, have heavily escalated due to the deep political divisions that have developed in this country over the last 20 some years. And I don't like it at all.

Yes, it is sad.

[GAC]

No. No, it doesn't.

It boils down to truth and falsehood.

Yep. And what you want to believe as truth and falsehood. What you want to see, and what you want to look the other way at in defense of your ideology.

Dead end street IMO.

[Falls City Beer]

Yep. And what you want to believe as truth and falsehood. What you want to see, and what you want to look the other way at in defense of your ideology.

Dead end street IMO.

How many times are you going to trot this tired line of argument out there and still remain as distant from the truth as you were when you first carted it out, lo these many months ago, as the truth spread about Bush and his numbers tumbled accordingly?

The Dems warned America. America ignored the warning. They messed up. The numbers show it--and more, they admit it.

The only dead end street I see in these parts is the cul-de-sac you've backed your argument into.

[GAC]

He served when called and called B.S. when he got back.

Kerry put his money where his mouth was. That to me is character. To others, I suppose, cheerleading and deference to authority are far more important and that's where they and I part company.

Yes, character is important. So why did he throw in with a group of radical anti-war protestors (VVAW), and during those meetings in Detroit, sponsored by Jane Fonda, and which helped to set the stage for his Senate Intelligence testimony, use the direct testimony of guys who claimed to be Vets who saw atrocities in Viet Nam, and yet, after further investigation, some of them never set foot in Nam? They fabricated and lied. And that has been proven.

Not all. Some of what Kerry said was truth. I don't deny that. But it was "built up" to give more weight to his testimony.

He called Viet Nam vets "thugs and murderers". Look it up.

His campaign several times said he "never, ever" attended a Kansas City meeting of antiwar leadership where members discussed and voted on an assassination plot against pro-war U.S. senators. Then, when confronted with FBI surveillance records of the meeting, the campaign acknowledged his presence.

Yes, character is important. Like standing on the steps of the Capitol and throwing medals that he CLAIM were his, and which turned out to be a buddies. His are sitting in his mantle in his office. Political posturing.

Character is running around the country, while we still have men over there in harm's way and suffering in POW camps, burning effigies dressed in military garb and the American flag, and staging mock skits that purposely demeaned his "comrade in arms" still over there.

His friendship with Hanoi Jane who was used by the Viet Cong as propaganda.

Back 30+ years ago, he stated he was ashamed of that war and what his comrades did. He called Viet Nam vets "thugs and murderers".

Thirty years later he is draping himself in that flag he was burning, praising that miltary service (and men) he was once ashamed of.

And like Bush - Kerry has refused to release military records.

That's character.

[Falls City Beer]

Yes, character is important. So why did he throw in with a group of radical anti-war protestors (VVAW), and during those meetings in Detroit, sponsored by Jane Fonda, and which helped to set the stage for his Senate Intelligence testimony, use the direct testimony of guys who claimed to be Vets who saw atrocities in Viet Nam, and yet, after further investigation, some of them never set foot in Nam? They fabricated and lied. And that has been proven.

Not all. Some of what Kerry said was truth. I don't deny that. But it was "built up" to give more weight to his testimony.

He called Viet Nam vets "thugs and murderers". Look it up.

His campaign several times said he "never, ever" attended a Kansas City meeting of antiwar leadership where members discussed and voted on an assassination plot against pro-war U.S. senators. Then, when confronted with FBI surveillance records of the meeting, the campaign acknowledged his presence.

Yes, character is important. Like standing on the steps of the Capitol and throwing medals that he CLAIM were his, and which turned out to be a buddies. His are sitting in his mantle in his office. Political posturing.

Character is running around the country, while we still have men over there in harm's way and suffering in POW camps, burning effigies dressed in military garb and the American flag, and staging mock skits that purposely demeaned his "comrade in arms" still over there.

His friendship with Hanoi Jane who was used by the Viet Cong as propaganda.

Back 30+ years ago, he stated he was ashamed of that war and what his comrades did. He called Viet Nam vets "thugs and murderers".

Thirty years later he is draping himself in that flag he was burning, praising that miltary service (and men) he was once ashamed of.

And like Bush - Kerry has refused to release military records.

That's character.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

R.W. Emerson

My uncle, who was a Marine, has "wonderful" Nam stories. He was smelling burning flesh on a daily basis and whiffing Agent Orange--now his two boys have deformed urethas, making urinating a painful exercise. He said that it was chaos, plain and simple--both U.S. and Viet Cong killing and raping at will--civilians used as target practice, torture, you name it. When Kerry called his kind murderers and thugs, he was telling the truth: he was one of them. It takes courage to admit it. War is hell and when you're given the marching orders you better follow, even if it means killing civilians.

[registerthis]

How many times are you going to trot this tired line of argument out there and still remain as distant from the truth as you were when you first carted it out, lo these many months ago, as the truth spread about Bush and his numbers tumbled accordingly?

The Dems warned America. America ignored the warning. They messed up. The numbers show it--and more, they admit it.

The only dead end street I see in these parts is the cul-de-sac you've backed your argument into.

Bush's approval ratings for August are going to be several points lower than they were for July--and THAT was a new record low for him.

It's like George the First all over again. It's also amusing to watch the Bush supporters "Stay the Course" in supporting him, through thick and thin.

[GAC]

The Dems warned America. America ignored the warning. They messed up.

The Dems warned America? More condescending elitism by a disgruntled segment in this country who think Americans are simple morons for not listening to them? The Dem leadership signed on and and supported this war when they saw it was politically expedient for them to do so. And then did a reverse when it was politically convenient not to do so. Their contractions are astounding. They should never get behind a mike or give a speech!

Now they are running around like a bunch of capons trying to figure out what they should do in time for '08.

And I guess you won't be voting for Hillary or Biden then, if either gets the nomination. They haven't been in total agrreement with the Bush policy over there. But they sure have offered the tough talk that many on the left seem to look the other way at, and don't advocate this "cut and run" policy that some want to take. But then, they are running for President in '08.

Polling numbers are up, then poll numbers are down. What will they be in six months to a year? I find it interesting that even as Bush's polling numbers have fallen - polls show that the American people still don't hold the Dem's in Congress in high regard either.... 45% to 42% Bush.

[GAC]

Bush's approval ratings for August are going to be several points lower than they were for July--and THAT was a new record low for him.

It's like George the First all over again. It's also amusing to watch the Bush supporters "Stay the Course" in supporting him, through thick and thin.

Because we still believe that what is trying to be accomplished in Iraq, even with the casualties, is the right thing to do.

I don't understand how the Democratic leadership could vote to go to war, knowing the costs and risks, and then lament when casualties occur. No one is belittling or making light of that. Just understanding the risks.

If we had lost 1800 men fighting in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Bin Laden, would that have made it more palatable?

[Falls City Beer]

The Dems warned America? More condescending elitism by a disgruntled segment in this country who think Americans are simple morons for not listening to them? The Dem leadership signed on and and supported this war when they saw it was politically expedient for them to do so. And then did a reverse when it was politically convenient not to do so. Their contractions are astounding. They should never get behind a mike or give a speech!

Now they are running around like a bunch of capons trying to figure out what they should do in time for '08.

And I guess you won't be voting for Hillary or Biden then, if either gets the nomination. They haven't been in total agrreement with the Bush policy over there. But they sure have offered the tough talk that many on the left seem to look the other way at, and don't advocate this "cut and run" policy that some want to take. But then, they are running for President in '08.

Polling numbers are up, then poll numbers are down. What will they be in six months to a year? I find it interesting that even as Bush's polling numbers have fallen - polls show that the American people still don't hold the Dem's in Congress in high regard either.... 45% to 42% Bush.

Can the Dems really be blamed when they have no say in the matter?