Itsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2831 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1428 times:
Hey Randy, here's an idea...how bout cutting your useless, crappy, short, uninformed posts down to perhaps once a week? Then I'd only have to avoid 1 thread instead of 7.
I don't get the relevancy this statement has to the fact that our current and, hopefully, soon to be former president is an embarrassment to the title "Commander In Chief". The one time he's been called on to act like a Commander In Chief is expected to act, he responds like a deer caught in headlights and sits motionless for 7 minutes. Yeah, that's the guy I want at the helm when we have minutes to react to a nuclear, er, I mean nuuuclar attack.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 22392 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1398 times:
Intervention Magazine as a source....give us a break!
Problem is, you don't need a source to know that Bush's public speaking problems are not making him look good, and that his reactions on 9/11 (sitting there) are not exactly ideal in that kind of situation. It's pretty much common knowledge, unless you've been hiding under some kind of conservative rock.
Poor public speaking skills and freezing when something important is going on are not uncommon traits. But the White House is not the place for them. The president of the United States (aka the most powerful person in the world) does not need to be heard saying that he never stops thinking of ways to harm the country. Nor does he need to be heard fumbling question after question at a press conference.
To be fair, Kerry isn't exactly a top flight speaker either, but he's worlds better than Bush.
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
DeskPilot From Australia, joined Apr 2004, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1383 times:
Bill Clinton gave a number of interviews on Australian TV last month. Australian TV journalists (e.g. Kerry O'Brien and Andrew Denton) don't pussy foot around with policiticians - Australian or overseas.
Most Australians who I spoke to that had seen the interviews were impressed with Bill's abilities. This guy is articulate, and gives a good account of his time in office plus goings on in the world at the time.
Now, I don't know if GWB has done any interviews like this, but based on his press conferences, I think he'd make a "dog's breakfast" of it. Is this guy hopeless or just nervous ?
By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?
Airplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1375 times:
Intervention Magazine as a source....give us a break!
Although this particular source spins the story in an "anti-Bush" manner, the facts remain. You can research it yourself L-188 and you will find that this particular Bush quote is accurate and the jist of the article rings true: GWB is a pathetic public speaker, and the less he talks and the more he avoids unscripted speeches, the better the GOP will look.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1359 times:
Give DeltaGuy a break, people. He's just doing in reflex what come naturally to Republicans-killing the messenger, if he dares to critisize Bush. RWAK's motis operandi, folks. Woof Woof.
“It’s no wonder the president avoids press conferences like the plague. Take away his cue cards and he can barely talk. Americans should be embarrassed that an Arab king (Abdullah of Jordan) spoke more fluently and articulately in English than our own president at their joint press conference recently.”
Whatever one claims about this souce (L-188, Mr, "I'm not a Republican"), this is a striking quote. And it's the God's truth. Abdullah has a better command of the English language than our current president. That's pathetic.
Since joining the Senate in 2000, Zell Miller and John Kerry have supported the exact same funding levels for America's Intelligence agencies. John Kerry served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for 6 years and is the former Vice Chairman of the Committee.
Turns out that Kerry was never held a leadership role on the committee:
John Kerry, Bob Kerrey. It's easy to get confused. At least that's how the Kerry campaign is explaining claims that Kerry -- the Democratic presidential candidate -- served as vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Oops. Make that Bob Kerrey -- the former Democratic senator from Nebraska who did serve as the panel's vice chairman.
In news releases and postings on Kerry's campaign Web site as recently as last Friday, the Massachusetts senator is touted as the panel's former vice chairman. However, according to the Senate Historical Office, Kerry never had the seniority to hold a leadership position on the committee -- though he was a member from 1993 until 2001.
QIguy24 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1270 times:
Just one - if a lack of military service should disqualify someone from being President, why was Bill Clinton even nominated by his party, let alone elected twice?
Just pointing out that your point is completely irrelevant. Have a nice day
I actually agree about this point. I thought a job as a President and the worlds most powerful man was about skills and knowledge. And not about what you did 30 years ago. If I was to vote in the US I wouldn't give a shit about what they did 30 years ago. I would vote for the man who had the best knoowledge about international and national politics.
B2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1379 posts, RR: 58
Reply 23, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1239 times:
Perhaps you should pay more attention in class.
Perhaps you should read the article:
Separately, according to [campaign spokesman] Meehan's statement, Kerry crossed into Cambodia on a covert mission to drop off special operations forces. In an interview, Meehan said there was no paperwork for such missions and he could not supply a date. That makes it hard to ascertain or confirm what happened. Kerry served on two swift boats, the No. 44 in December 1968 and January 1969, and the No. 94, from February to March 1969.
Michael Medeiros, who served aboard the No. 94 with Kerry and appeared with him at the Democratic National Convention, vividly recalled an occasion on which Kerry and the crew chased an enemy to the Cambodian border but did not go beyond the border. Yet Medeiros said he could not recall dropping off special forces in Cambodia or going inside Cambodia with Kerry.
The Kerry campaign has since said that the presidential candidate's recollection was imprecise — that his runs into Cambodia came in the early months of 1969.
Imprecise? Imprecise? This is supposed to be the searing, pivotal moment of Kerry's political life: sitting in a gunboat across the border on Christmas Eve, listening to the (wrong) president say there are no troops in Cambodia. But now he can't even recall which day it was, his own colleagues don't recall the incident, his campaign can't find any evidence to back him up, and his commanding officers deny he was ever there.
Hmm...where did Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Delay, Lott & Hastert spend Christmas of 1968? Here's a clue - their yellow butts weren't anywhere near Cambodia!
“I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way… What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be re-fighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary.” -- John Kerry to Presidential candidate Bob Kerrey (D-NE), defending Clinton's record in Vietnam, Feb. 27, 1992
“You and I know that if service or non-service in the war is to become a test of qualification for high office, you would not have a vice president, nor would you have a secretary of defense, and our nation would never recover from the divisions created by that war.” -- John Kerry to President Bush, defending Clinton's record in Vietnam, Oct. 1992