Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I won't touch the "moron" label (sure, those Bushisms are embarassing sometimes, but it's hard for me to swallow a Yale and Harvard MBA graduate as a "moron" ;)), but I would label Kerry with the same murderous tag. Shooting a fleeing Vietnamese in the back as well as the unknown (or known [streamload.com] {from Kerry's own lips}) atrocities that Kerry participated in, over in Vietnam deserve the same judgement.

    Of course, it depends on who you listen to, the Swift Vets gang [swiftvets.com] or the Democrats (and the mainstream media that
    • Yes of course :)

      WRT the murderous there's a difference not only in degree but also in nature between some war atrocities and send people to butchery by starting an entire war based on lies purely for personal profit.

      As for Kerry's competence, it simply doesn't matter: no matter how incompetent you just can't be worse than Bush. It's never been seen in any major country before, and, with any hope, won't be seen again in our lifetimes. The Democrats could run a monkey for presidency, I'd still s

      --

      -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

      • Incompetent is probably not the right word ... an incompetent President would have done nothing after 9/11 and allowed for more terrorism of that magnitude to take place.

        ...starting an entire war based on lies purely for personal profit.

        Wow. That's completely ignoring the fact that this whole thing wasn't started by Bush, but by the terrorists from 9/11. Even John Kerry believes we did the right thing, by going to war with Afghanistan and Iraq (though he wanted a different approach). Maybe if he sho [factcheck.org]

        • Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Or rather, it would have been the right thing to do right. It has been left mostly to its own devices, and large tracts of the taliban movement and al-Qaeda are still operating there because of that. Iraq had no link whatsoever to terrorism. Now it's become the most convenient way to attack american interests, and therefore a terrorist hotbed.

          Small things can be indicative. For instance, there may be reasons why after 9/11 98% of Europeans said they were extremely supportive of the US. Two years later, 78% of the same ranked the US as the most important threat to peace and security worldwide, in front of such friendly entities as terrorists or North Korea. Terrorism is an international plague. If you think more terrorism of that magnitude hasn't taken place, don't you think you're forgetting 3/11? Madrid? Rings a bell? There were fewer losses thankfully, but that's only because the ten bombs set off a touch too early and failed to bring the roof of the station to fall, as the plan was. A bit as if the towers had been hit but hadn't crumbled. If you think Bush eradicated more terrorism than he created, go argue your points to a Madrilene.

          The war on Iraq wasn't started by the terrorists, it was started unilaterally by the current Republican administration, and I have trouble understanding how one can not see that today, with lesser media blitz and the largest pro-war newspapers accumulating mea-culpas for having been blind and biased. The terrorists suffered zilch from the war in Iraq, but some people got their hands on strategic oil. I don't see how 9/11 justifies Iraq -- just because someone punches you in the face doesn't mean you can go hit on some random other guy. Everyone knows that that administration had plans to invade Iraq and only needed an excuse -- the neo-cons had been saying it for two years before election already.

          --

          -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

          • If you think Bush eradicated more terrorism than he created, go argue your points to a Madrilene.

            Sorry darobin, there is not a jot of evidence that Bush's actions contributed to 3/11. You actually believe what they say? Talk about "moron." Bin Laden said he attacked on 9/11 because of U.S. support of Israel, which is something he never mentioned years before when he was attacking the U.S. They change their reasons to whatever they think will garner them the most support. Don't buy into the foolishnes