DescentBB

Of all the lame issues the Dems are barking up, the President's 35-year-old National Guard history earns the Wrong Tree, Wrong Forest award. Are we witnessing an election or a flamewar? Kerry should get back to traditional Democratic Party issues that resonate with the common American (which I'll document the moment I find one).

Now that Bush' full records have been unearthed and are being made public, me wonders if John F. Kennedy, er, I mean, John F. Kerry (whose own service is checkered) will issue an apology to a man who's demonstrated he's emminently more capable of steering the ship of state during wartime than Kerry could steer a little boat in the Mekong Delta. Why doesn't Kerry just scream *I've killed a man with my own hands* and get it over with if he's that hellbent for leather to appear manly.

For a man who ranks up there with Jane Fonda as a Friend of the US Soldier, Kerry's asking for trouble by wrapping himself in the flag, surrounding himself with hand-picked veterans and hoping no one bothers looking a little closer at his Vietnam War and post-Vietnam War record. I hear echoes of Gary Hart's *Follow me, I have nothing to hide* dare to the press.

I'm a little surprised Kerry hasn't disowned that line of attack when you consider the real contrast between the two men. Maybe I give the average voter too much credit to see the truth of the matter.

There is a conventional wisdom in politics, and life in general, that is:

'You're only as good as your last effort.' ...or...
'What have you done for me lately?'

Although Kerry's efforts over 45 years ago in VietNam were valiant they really didn't do anything to insure the well being of America, no matter how many villages he burned or women and children he strafed with "harrasing fire" as he calls it, he really didn't help us one bit.
In fact we lost that war!

Since then he has pretended to throw his medals away, refered to his fellow soldiers as baby killers and protested along side Jane Fonda herself.
He has a WORSE voting record than Teddy Kennedy on every single issue regarding the military, the intelligence gathering departments, and foriegn policy in general!
He has done nothing as a Senator or as a citizen to make america strong or safe...period... NOTHING!

Bush on the other hand has very recently destroyed the Taliban, chased bin Laddin so far under ground no one is really sure if he's even alive, done substantial damage to al Queda's infrastructure, seized large portions of their funds and arrested or killed well over half of their known and discovered active leadership.
Bush has temporarily taken over Iraq, imprisoned Saddam ending his terrible reign and his financial and logistic support of terrorists.

By taking Saddam out and controlling Iraq he has greatly reduced the over all potential power base of al Queda and other terrrorists in the middle east...so much so that they, in their own words, have described their situation as desperate and their future as endangered!

In the process of prosecuting his war on terror Bush caught Khadafi red-handed with an incoming shipment of banned weapons which is the real reason for Libya's sudden cooperation.

In just under four years we have taken the fight out of three countries and their leadership, plus one very dangerous roving madman, bin Laddin, who no doubt will be in handcuffs or assuming room temperature soon...

The question, 'What have you done for me lately?' is one that Bush can answer with pride.
The answer to 'How effective was your last effort?' is one Bush can build quite a resume with.
The impact of an american president, a real commander in chief, who is not afraid to act on principle regardless of the much over-rated 'world opinion' has been profound and positive. The reverberations of Bush's actions are still shaking the bad guys in their boots and will continue to rattle them for many years to come and it's about damn time!

And all John Kerry has to counter with is he fought a in a losing war over four decades ago that really didn't mean **** to our safety or future.
Furthermore, he has been busy exploiting the VietNam war out of both sides of his mouth!
A feat that can only performed by a professional two-faced politician.

On one hand he spent the last 45 plus years of his life reminding america about his grand heroic efforts in a war which his participation in is really his only claim to patriotism and he has cashed that check so many times the ink is worn off.

Yet at the same time he has done his best to protest that same war, his fellow soldiers, and america as a whole. Doing everything he can divorce himself from any responsibility.
Pretending to throw away his medals while the real ones were tucked safely away in his pro-military-event fund raising kit no doubt.
What an a$$hole!

If you had to pick only between Bush and Kerry then ask yourself one question:
Which of the two would; bin Laddin, Ayatolla Whatshisface, Kim Jung Ill, China etc. etc. vote for?

PS: Have you ever met a grown man who's lived his whole life off of his girlfriends money who wasn't a complete asshat?
Me either...

PSS: I still strongly recommend not voting for Bush either but I just wanted to vent a little anti-Kerry venom

Kerry's membership in Skull and Bones, by itself, disqualifies him in my book. Same goes for Bush. A fine post, Will.

I'm at the point where i dont want a president that actually wants the job.

<font face="Arial" size="3">Yet at the same time he has done his best to protest that same war, his fellow soldiers, and america as a whole. Doing everything he can divorce himself from any responsibility.</font>

If I was drafted into a war that I did not support, I would still go. And if I was a war hero, I would still tell people about it if they asked me. Are you saying that it is inadmirable for someone who doesn't believe in a war, to go, just because that is what his country asks him to do?

I can see why older generations love bush. But it is my generation that is going to end up paying for your free lunch.

Spin++

Well if you really "don't beleive" in something so deadly as a war, then how <u> can you</u> go...maybe if you're too scared to stand up for 'what you believe'...or do you not know what you believe until the majority starts to protest and then you jump on the protest bandwagon.

" Are you saying that it is inadmirable for someone who doesn't believe in a war, to go, just because that is what his country asks him to do?"

No, I'm saying it's not leadership or particularly smart to do that. It is a sign of a follower, a robot, a good soldier. Those are the characteristics of an unsure person who feels safer taking orders than giving them.


"But it is my generation that is going to end up paying for your free lunch."

If Bush is right, it is your generation and those that follow that will benefit, not suffer from this move he made. Time will tell, but remember, the plans for 9/11 were laid before Bush became president. If Gore or Kerry had followed Clinton we'd still be a target but I can sincerely question the degree of response either of those liberals would have dealt out.


One of my all time heroes is Muhammed Ali, he sacrificed great wealth and opportunity, the World Crown. And for a black man in the '60's there weren't too many opportunitys for wealth and far fewer crowns!
He was a principled protester who said: 'lock me up I don't care, I don't want to fight your war'. I don't think he even knew exactly why he didn't want to go, just that he felt it was unfair and he stood up like a proud man and said so.

That's the kind of protest that warrants respect even if you disagree with his reasons.
Ali's actions were on a par with the Founding Fathers personal sacrifice, Kerry's actions, in totality, reveal a weakness not wanted in a leader.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by bash:
Of all the lame issues the Dems are barking up, the President's 35-year-old National Guard history earns the Wrong Tree, Wrong Forest award. Are we witnessing an election or a flamewar? Kerry should get back to traditional Democratic Party issues that resonate with the common American (which I'll document the moment I find one).</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said.

The liberal press and, well, the liberals, have gone to great lengths in the past few days to bring Bush's military record into question. Honestly, what difference does it make? Bush's press secretary demonstrated pay stubs and evidence that Bush had served and worked. Still, the liberals pressed, "Do they prove he worked in Alabama?"

What difference does it make if Bush worked in Alabama?

What the thickheaded democrats have difficulty comprehending is that in order to attack Bush, you must attack him on the issues. Question his economic record and how many jobs were lost under his administration. Question the deficit he has created and where that money is going. Moreover, say how you can do it better. I've yet to see any of these Democratic candidates expose the details of their plans, and until I see them it is politics as usual; smoke and mirrors. These are the areas intelligent people want to know about and see, not John Kerry yodeling a country tune about Bush's departure.

The Democrats are hopelessly out of touch.

what has bush done to make this country strong and safe? I have to turn on MSNBC to see what color we're at so I can go outside without my fallout jacket on (it's Polo btw).

Honestly, I don't like the attacking of the "service" between the two. Asking for records is really sort of dumb, in my opinion, McCain was captured and Kerry was given medals for fighting. Bush was in the reserves to avoid fighting...so whether he went AWOL or not means nothing to me.

Hey woodchip, is there anything, and I mean anything at all that you don't find wrong with president bush? I swear that guy could pull out a swastika and you would blame it on the DNC chairman. Good laughs though, a joint and a six of bud and i'm laughing at 5 in the pm. Thanks

<font face="Arial" size="3">No, I'm saying it's not leadership or particularly smart to do that. It is a sign of a follower, a robot, a good soldier. Those are the characteristics of an unsure person who feels safer taking orders than giving them.</font>

Just so I am understanding you. The admirable choice is to dodge the draft if you don't agree with the cause?

If I am not mistaken, Muhammad Ali did not refuse to fight because he disbelieved in the cause. He refused to fight for the rights of another group of people that he himself didn't have in his own country.

"If it was about helping blacks, I would have gone in a minute. -Muhammad Ali"

edit: Having thought about it some, I guess I can see some situations in which I would not go, but few realistic ones in modern times. However, in a situation as the last war, I would.

"Muhammad Ali did not refuse to fight because he disbelieved in the cause. He refused to fight for rights of another group of people that he himself didn't have in his own country. " - Gooberman


"I don't think he even knew exactly why he didn't want to go, just that he felt it was unfair and he stood up like a proud man and said so." - Will

I don't see where I qualified Ali's decision as a judgement of the 'cause'.
I think "...just that he felt it was unfair" is acurate and in agreement with what you quoted. I just paraphrased it as "unfair" because I couldn't remember his exact words. I've seen all the old footage of him and also seen the movie with Will Smith. I didn't want to quote the movie because I'm not sure they didn't embelish a bit. (Great movie by the way).
I think my characterization of his reasons are fairly acurate.

"The admirable choice is to dodge the draft if you don't agree with the cause? "

The way Ali did it, under those circumstances, yes, absolutely admirable.

The way Kerry did...but didn't..well sort of...but those were really not his medals he threw away...and he's the proud soldier/hero at fund raisers but thinks soldiers are "baby killers"....and he thinks VietNam shouldn't be an issue when Clinton was questioned but thinks Bush should answer the same kind of questions...etc. etc. etc......NOT admirable.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Will Robinson:
<b> Although Kerry's efforts over 45 years ago in VietNam were valiant they really didn't do anything to insure the well being of America, no matter how many villages he burned or women and children he strafed with "harrasing fire" as he calls it, he really didn't help us one bit.
In fact we lost that war!</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

imho, that's kinda whack, will.
if he was a soldier carrying out his ORDERS isn't that a hell of a lot more than silver spoon bush pulling his "good ole boy republican guard duty" routine? he was a soldier in a "police action" and followed his orders. whatâ??s a commander and chief, eh?

of course, i think the 2 party system is a bi-tyranny so i'm not gonna vote for kerry. but he actually went into a combat zone. unlike "teh noobie" that talks all the talk and hasn't seen jack squat but daddy's way out.

andâ?¦ what is with that secret yale society crap anyway? you people don't believe in conspiracies?

Z, which one of us is woodchip?

Cops, if his resume stopped with serving in VietNam then I'd have no problem. Not necessarily a qulification for president but no foul.
It's the totality of his history that is so contradictory, self serving and two faced that it leaves one to reasonably ask, which John Kerry is running and does John Kerry even know the answer to that question...
I think he's waiting to read in the newspaper which one has the support of the most voters and then assume that personae.

He's as two faced as Bush, well a bit more two faced in some important areas and the important difference in my book is, he's less likely to stand up against the 'world opinion' and slumping poll numbers and continue the fight against radical fundamentalists wherever we find them. He'd play it safe, surrender authority to the U.N. knowing that if/when they fail he wouldn't be blamed.
In that arena Bush is ten times the man Kerry is.

Kerry is another Clinton when it comes to foriegn policy without any charm or domestic skills.
He's a professional loser who couldn't even get a fat intern to amuse us

By the way, I mention the 'baby killing' because he brings it up when he thinks the right audience is listening...then breaks out the real medals when the other audience in listening.
I personally don't fault anyone for their part in a war unless it was blatently over the line, if his boss said strafe the civilians I say go ahead, those civilians more often than not were really NVA regulars anyway.

I agree with Will that Kerry's fence-hopping depending on which way he perceives the political winds are blowing (really, who the hell votes for a war and then votes not to fund it?) doesn't distinguish him to me as a particularly decisive personality (and that's putting it kindly). He's The Yankee Flipper. I'm envisioning a repeat of the California Governor's election where the Republican stayed on the highroad discussing the concerns of the people while the Dems put most of their energy into countless dirty tricks to discredit the man personally rather than challenge his political plans. It was a losing strategy in California and it will be a losing strategy next November if it continues.

Let me help define character. Kerry is on record as saying he had witness atrocities while in vietnam. Yeah, they did occur. Here's the problem...as a officer, Kerry should have either prevented them or brought charges against whom ever were commiting them. A excellant example of character was during the Mei Lai massacre. A helicopter pilot who was at the scene saw what was going on and had his crew chief gather up as many civilians and bring them over to his slick. There were too many to load up so the pilot called in for other Huey's to come help with the trans port. While waiting a group of soldiers doing the killing started to head over towards the pilots helicopter and the vietamese gathered around it. The pilot ordered his door gunner to fire a warning burst over their heads and if they didn't stop to open fire on the soldiers if they kept coming. Thankfully the soldiers stopped.
So the question is does Kerry have what it takes to make a highly moral decision like this? Saving a fellow soldier while under dire happens all the time. Faced with a Mei Lai situtation is another matter entirely.
Fast forward today and the question remains...does Kerry have what it takes to make a decision to protect the American populace when the major UN powers are against it (as in the Iraq situation). Would he "open fire" so to speak to protect us?
His voting record over the years and what he is saying while on the stump certainly indicates that he would willing go with the "crowd" and take the easy way out by ignoring what is going on around him.
Bush, on the other hand, has demonstrated that he is willing to make a hard choice even though it may fly in the face of world opinion. The question is, if you were a vietamese civilian huddled around the helicopter...who would you want as the pilot.

Personally, I want a few more details about Kerry's *heroics*. Searches don't yield much and Kerry pulls the *we veterans don't like to talk about the war* when pressed for details. The anti-Kerry veterans' sites offer some pretty scorching indictments of what *really* happened during the incidents that led to Mr. Kerry being subsequently decorated with various medals of distinction. They paint a picture of incompetence and cruelty. I'd really like some clarification of just what daddy did in the war. But, at the moment, Kerry isn't talking. Stark contrast to a time when all he could do was talk about the war and the atrocities *others* were committing which, he admitted, he had no firsthand knowledge of and was just repeating things he'd heard. Seems to be a pattern for John to be a gossip when it serves his ambition and to portray himself as a pillar of integrity when it doesn't.

I'm sorry bash, but your post was very right wing from the beginning, i only assumed it was woodchip. You usually have something decent to say, not just a 'bash'...

I think it's funny that you guys justify someone skimping out on the Vietnam War(clinton did it too yes i know) by saying the Dem was this and that.

Do you guys have something against Clark's record?? I hope he runs with Kerry, that would be a cool duo.

Other than Clark being an egomaniac, the fact that he can't keep his own politics straight from day to day makes him the perfect running mate for a flipper like Kerry. Also, I'm certain professional soldier and Vietnam veteran Clark was aware of and presumably despised Kerry back in the Senator's anti-war/anti-military days. Finding them on the same ticket would be full of just so much irony. Clark's already stated he *outranks* Kerry so the ego struggle between the two should be good for a few laughs. Unfortunately, I don't think there's much hope of a Kerry/Clark ticket. The Dems will go by the numbers and offer the VP slot to Edwards, I predict. I'm holding out hope the Dems will tap Meadowlark Lemon as veep so we could have a Lemon/Kerry ticket. *groan*

And what the hell is *rightwing* about concluding something is a non-issue. Even if evidence was found that young Bush spent his entire NG service on a drinking binge whoring it up at Mardi Gras, would it change a single vote almost 40 years later? Doubtful. Just because you'd like it to sully Bush' reputation doesn't make it an issue, Z. Your enthusiasm for issues that make the President squirm but serve no purpose for the American people is much more *leftwing* than my opposition is *rightwing*. Finally, how can you claim to have even given it much thought if 1) you admitted being drunk and 2) you skimmed so badly you couldn't even correctly identify the topic starter? It's good to change one's icon every now and again to see who's paying attention.

To answer your misdirected question, however, I see plenty wrong with Bush but he's not flawed enough in my eyes to make him the issue rather than his administration's performance. Bush has been an excellent President, thanks chiefly to surrounding himself with an extremely experienced, no-nonsense, diverse staff to supplement his own shortcomings (as opposed to the Clinton Whitehouse which more closely resembled Animal House). If by some stroke of cosmic madness I were made President tomorrow, with the exception of Cheney (who I'm beginning to think is an urban legend), I'd hope to have the same cabinet as Bush. My only current concern going into the election is that Colin Powell won't re-up for a second term as Secretary of State (assuming Bush wins, of course). I'd like to know that before I vote but my guess is Powell won't make any announcement until after the election. More than anyone else in the administration I equate Powell's politics as closest to my own. I also hope Cheney is replaced on the ticket with someone a little more active, visible and skilled at softening Bush' rough edges and sharp elbows. An American Tony Blair, yea, that's the ticket.

Rudy Giuliani for president, keep Powell and Rumsfeld (I like the ying and yang of those two)!

Hey, why not bring it back to the old days. The winner of the election is the Prez and the loser is the Veep...wouldnt that be good..make the two parties work together?? Something to ponder...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Zuruck:
..make the two parties work together?? Something to ponder...</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Better yet, lets put the two parties on the next flight to Mars and that way we improve the system dramatically AND get our moneys worth out of the budget!!

Perhaps a taste of the soup de jour Kerry will serve up if elected:

"Kerry said that the United Nations should have control over most of our foreign military operations. "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

This was stated back in the 70's

To be fair, I don't think you can hold what someone said 40 years ago against them today any more than you can hold Bush' NG experience against him. Kerry has made enough contradictory statements/votes within the last few years to indicate you can't really be sure he's sincere about much of what he says. So if he says he didn't really mean the UN comment or has altered his view, I tend to believe him since it's so hard to believe him. Ouch, that makes my brain itch.

what's the difference?
you are voting for another cracker that has more money than god. to take sides is laughable. to adjust your microscope to one or the other is just a knit-picking waste of time. these pop stars are under contract to the same record company... go watch the grammys and wet yourself.

;-0

You must have skipped that day in Slur 101, Meatnik, but a *cracker* is a disparaging term for poor Southern Whites, not just white folks in general and definitely not a silver-spoon Yankee like Kerry. Priviledge aside, Oscar Wilde observed, *No man is rich enough to buy back his past.*

I am the MOOSE of DEATH!

<--- PHEAR ME!

MUAHAHAHA!

It is Quihotic (sp?) that the FemDem's are playing up the war records of both Bush and their boy as a measuring rule for how one should vote. Remember back in 92 when Bush senior was running for re-election? Bush senior had served in vietnam and in fact was shot down over the gulf of tonkin and was rescued. Where was the Dems boy at? Why over in merry old England, blowing weed with all his other draft dodging gay friends. How come a war record was important then? (I have thinking caps for rent if you don't know the answer)

Oh and what is this horse pucky I heard on BBC that Kerry is being botox'd into being the new JFK?

I dont know, but making Botox an issue is dumb, for anybody.

Bush, Sr. served in WWII not Vietnam. He flew a torpedo bomber and was shot down somewhere over the South Pacific.

I stand corrected...thanks T-Bone.

It would appear the comparison may be hitting close to home as Drudge is reporting Kerry is a bit of a womaniser. Do the Dems have anyone with moral fidelity?

Yes, but he's gay.

I read.

Seems to me, a president's personal beliefs and convictions are immaterial. The question really is this: Will he do what's best for America and Americans. And will he do what the American people tell him to?

He is, after all, a Public Servant. He is also supposed to represent all Americans in a democratic way. i.e. if the majority of people want something done, then it should be done, and done with a smile, even if the President believes it to be incorrect.

My personal belief is that anyone who seeks public office should be instantly banned from ever holding such a post. That applies to all existing types of government.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Mobius:
He is, after all, a Public Servant. He is also supposed to represent all Americans in a democratic way. i.e. if the majority of people want something done, then it should be done, and done with a smile, even if the President believes it to be incorrect.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. He's supposed to be a leader not a follower. He's supposed to fight to enact his agenda, the same agenda he campaigned on which would be the one that got him elected.

That's one thing Bush had going for him, he delivered on most of his main promises...then he delivered a bunch of spending he didn't promise...

But when it comes to national security he is far above the democrats left in the race. Lieberman was the only Dem who understood the big picture.

yeah he delivered on his campaign promises alright...


http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/brokenpromises/

Zuruck you are really not opening your mind if you want to quote the DNC when trying to asses Bush's promises!

I checked your link and one of the first things they list is "the Social Security Lockbox"...Heh! There is no 'lock box'...never was.
There isn't even a seperate account, ask any politician who talks about the social security account or it's figures and see if they can tell you what the balance is for any time period, any year or quarter...even a decade!
They can't, because the money taken from our pay goes into the general fund, always has. If there was an actual account it would show deficit going back to Kennedy at least...

But that's ok, you think it's Bush's fault so that means the Democrats are doing their job. That job is to fool you into voting for them and even help spread their bullshiz. Just like the republicans fool their supporters too.

If you base your knowledge of the way the government works on the propaganda from either party then your bound to make terrible assumptions. They have you right where they want you...ignorant. The only thing they have left to do is see which 'party' can gain your ignorant vote with their sound bites.

I'm sure if I read further I'd see how Bush didn't deliver on his education spending. Even though he actually spent more than the democrats asked for...with Teddy Kennedy himself helping to write the legislation...but publically of course they say he didn't deliver and their ignorant voters just repeat the mantra.

He delivered tax cuts that have helped the economy get a move on...but of course they will tell you otherwise...he did deliver on education spending...he did deliver on national security issues...more than he ever imagined he would be able to thanks to 9/11. He did deliver medicare drug benifits...much to the chagrin of his own conservative base...etc. etc.

He's been a pretty liberal rightwing president that's why the dem's have such a hard time fighting him because he didn't 'starve children', 'burn black churches', 'poison the water'...like they promised he would.

I'd say Bush has lived up to his promises more than the democrats have.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Mobius:
<b> I read.

Seems to me, a president's personal beliefs and convictions are immaterial. The question really is this: Will he do what's best for America and Americans. And will he do what the American people tell him to?</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mobi, it comes down to this: the person who can lie the best and taint the challenging candidate the best usually wins.....

At the risk of being branded anything but a moderate I have a question to ask all you die-hard Dubya fans: Has any of Bush's economic policies helped you?

I'm not really much of a fan of his anymore but since I've been carrying his water here today:

No.
Not that I can tell anyway. If the tax cuts did spur an earlier recovery then I guess some of my customers are spending now where they may have waited to make the improvements that have led to sales for me.
New ice machines and additional heat pump systems in resturaunts that are remodelling...service and installation on equipment in new rental properties that are filling up with people coming here to work...this place is growing fast.

Here's Classic Kerry making a crashlanding onto the highroad after starting the rumour mill churning in the first place (how's that for metaphor overkill? ).

<font face="Arial" size="3">In a letter to Bush, Kerry wrote: "As you well know, Vietnam was a very difficult and painful period in our nation's history, and the struggle for our veterans continues. So, it has been hard to believe that you would choose to reopen these wounds for your personal political gain. But, that is what you have chosen to do."</font>

Kerry doesn't appear to have much respect for the intelligence and the memory of the common man. What goes around comes around, John. Kerry's getting too dirty already and there's still a long time until the election. Watch for John to transform himself into Edwards next. I feel like I'm watching John Carpenter's The Thing the guy morphs into so many others. Will the real John Kerry please stand up (or at least ooze your slimey self into a persistently-shaped container).

Poozy, I can see that the amount of construction projects I am requested to bid on is really healthy right now. If it is a result of the tax cut, I can't say.

Bash you may be interested in this. The other morning on NPR, Diane Ream had some wag on and the discussion was why the press gave so much coverage to the Bush allegations and next to nothing on the Kerry intern affair. I almost spit out my coffee (not MacDonalds so I couldn't sue) when the guy explains:
Well on the AWOL charge, since Terry Mcaulif made the charge and because he is a reputable source...the main stream press had to follow the story.
On the other hand since the Kerry affair was only posted on the drudge report and no reputable sources were given...the main stream press could not in good conscience follow up on the story.
So this is where I stared at the radio is disbelief. First off...when has the main stream press ever had a conscience?
Secondly the drudge report stated 3 reporters heard Wesly Clark make comment that Kerry had a intern problem and was going to implode. I guess Clark is not reputable. Of course Diane Ream, the old liberal bag she is, never pressed the latter portion of the wags comments.

john carpenter's the thing is in my top 10 movies of all time. interesting... it has no women in the movie (unless you count the game show they are watching while lighting the spliff).

oh yea... you guys are attacking politicians from the 2 party system. which is a waste of timeâ?¦ because they own your middle class ass.

;-0

At least Mr. Cops, we have a ass TO own