October 27, 2004
Justification
Rah Rah Rah.... vote Cheerleader in Chief
Why vote for Bush? His qualifications? How about his record and administration's behavior? Maybe it's his fantastic record of quietly screwing those who think he's still doing well by them? If all that fails, his record of sharing love and thinking through consequences of his actions.
and last but not least, how he reaches out to expat swing voters... (C&P from a friend in Belgium)
Access Denied
You don't have permission to access "http://www.georgewbush.com/" on this server
* To the naysayers who don't believe there are systemic issues with voting this year that should be cause for concern..................guess again.
Bad News
 What tin-pot dictator are you? Take the "What Dictator am I?" test at PoisonedMinds.com |
At what point does the bitterness and sarcasm cross the line? The "tin-pot dictator" post is not humorous in the least. This is just the type of stuff that discredits otherwise respectable blogs. Rise above the abject attacks. The campaigns do enough of this without adding to it on an individual basis.
I'm also still waiting for Monkeys to admit that they, like their candidate of choice, made a huge mistake in so quickly jumping on the missing explosives story and not recognizing the absence of credibility and objectivity from the NY Times. But then it's only likely I'll see that when I see Kerry admit that he's a fool and demonstrated poor judgement in ripping that headline for campaign fodder. If you don't have enough judgement to allow the media as a whole to vet an article as explosive (no pun intended) as the missing explosives before running with it, you don't have the judgement to run this country.
Posted by: Andy at October 28, 2004 03:58 PMMy job is not to keep you either humored or amused. This website is a pull not a push environment and you come here by choice. If it bugs you, stop reading.
On the missing explosives; wasn't the primary reason for going into Iraq WMDs? Should our primary goal then have been to secure them once we were there? We had enough satellite photos of Iraq to show pictures and slides at the UN, but not enough intelligence to recon the hot spots we knew about as soon as we took Baghdad?
Referring to Kerry as a fool for speaking to failures in the current administration and using the NYT as the scapegoat is at best a red herring. We can't pick out 370+ tons of munitions being liberated from a known cache via satellite and once on the ground, failed to secure the site and the guilty party is a newspaper for reporting it once word *finally* got out. Now that every major publication is reporting on the story, does it now carry more weight or are you waiting on Bill O'Reilly to talk about it first?
That era of responsibility that was "ushered in" seems to have missed it's mark, somewhat.
Posted by: kerry at October 28, 2004 04:36 PMGive it up, Andy. The story about the missing explosives gets more credible by the day and the GOP's desperate spinning gets more ludicrous. "It was looted before the war. Oops, I mean the Russians took it. Oops, I mean it was never there in the first place. Oops, I mean it's the fault of the troops for not securing the place." Pathetic.
Posted by: dmm at October 28, 2004 09:16 PM