NationStates Jolt Archive

Reason #1: The Clintons have taken over the campaign staff for Kerry. We all know that the main goal of the Clintons is to have Hillary as President and she can't wait until 2012, and even then she will have to run against Edwards. No, the time for the Clintons is in 2008.

Reason #2: No coherent foreign policy. First its bring the troops home, even home from Europe and Korea. Bush rearranges troops in Germany and Asia and hes now against that.

He comes out 3 weeks ago saying that he would still have voted for war in Iraq knowing all that we know today.

Dean says in the primary season that Iraq was the wrong place at the wrong time. Kerry denounces that view and takes a more moderate stance. Today, he virtually lifts Dean's comments from last December.

Reason #3: The American public will come to realize that they can't vote for a traitor. Definition of traitor in the Constitution: anyone who gives aid or comfort to the enemy. What does Kerry do when he gets home from Vietnam, he denounce our warriors as murderous thugs who raped and pillaged the countryside of Vietnam. Tapes of his testimony were played in front of our POW's, they gave the North Vietnamese the will to fight on, knowing that there was a massive peace movement in the US. That is what I call aid and comfort to the enemy. He met with the commies in Paris, and his picture hangs in a Vietnamese museum dedicated to the war, in an area that is dedicated to all the overseas protestors who helped them win the war for communism.

Reason #4: The whole premise of his campaign is flawed, He is asking us to vote for him becasue he served four months in a war that was virtually universally unpopular, a war he protested against himself, and war that somehow makes him qualified to be President.

Say, I have four months training to be a pilot. That doesn't make me qualified to be a 747 pilot now does it? Well four months in the military shouldn't be the only qualification for being president.

Now these are real issues that are facing Kerry, instead of the W stands for wrong claims of Kerry. Real quick, that whole slogan doesn't make sense in saying it. The word wrong has a silent "w", albeit the slogan makes sense in writing, but not in saying it.

Are you calling all 250,000 protestors in New York traitors, or are they just doing their civic duty and using their civil rights?

They must give comfort to those Iraqi's who see a large peace movement, right?

Here is why kerry is set to lose. A candidate needs 270 Electoral Votes to win. As they start, Kerry has 14 states and the District of Columbia in his column for 193 electoral vote while Bush has 25 states for 217 votes, according to an Associated Press analysis of state polls as well as interviews with strategists across the country. The rest are your 20 or so battleground states. So Kerry is basically running 24 electoral votes behind before the first vote is cast, which is worse even then where Gore was at 4 years ago. It's not impossible, but considering we're less than two months out and Kerry is and has been trailing in most polls since the DNC, it's looking pretty horrible for him.

They did an investigation, (the US and Vietnamese govts) and found that the Viet Cong fellow that Kerry shot to death, was shot even though he had dropped his weapon and was surrendering, he didn't pose threat. Hence his death at the hands of John Kerry, constitutes a war crime.

Silly Republicans try to start a fight they can't win!
I'm on to your games, because unlike you I have the speech at hand.

Reason #3: The American public will come to realize that they can't vote for a traitor. Definition of traitor in the Constitution: anyone who gives aid or comfort to the enemy. What does Kerry do when he gets home from Vietnam, he denounce our warriors as murderous thugs who raped and pillaged the countryside of Vietnam. Tapes of his testimony were played in front of our POW's, they gave the North Vietnamese the will to fight on, knowing that there was a massive peace movement in the US. That is what I call aid and comfort to the enemy. He met with the commies in Paris, and his picture hangs in a Vietnamese museum dedicated to the war, in an area that is dedicated to all the overseas protestors who helped them win the war for communism.
First I'll link you to the speech since you seriously need to read it.

Second, he attacks the leaders not the soldiers for the deeds.

Link: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1121957/posts

I would like to say for the record, and also for the men sitting behind me who are also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting here is really symbolic. I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of a group of 1,000, which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table, they would be here and have the same kind of testimony. I would simply like to speak in general terms. I apologize if my statement is general because I received notification [only] yesterday that you would hear me, and, I am afraid, because of the injunction I was up most of the night and haven't had a great deal of chance to prepare.

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago, in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit--the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam,in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. The term "winter soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776, when he spoke of the "sunshine patriots," and "summertime soldiers" who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel, because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.

I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.

As a veteran and one who felt this anger, I would like to talk about it. We are angry because we feel we have been used it the worst fashion by the administration of this country.

In 1970, at West Point, Vice President Agnew said, "some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse," and this was used as a rallying point for our effort in Vietnam.


That is the beggining but you know Kerry never says anything different from what I said. You can read it and prove me right or stay in ignorance. Nothing wrong with ignorance we are all at some point but staying ignorant is bad when you have the choice to not be.
It is not comfort and aid to the enemy because it was made for the troops not against them. Unless you deny there were any bad things going on in Vetnam you can't say its treason. The truth is best defense against any libel and slander and you can't show there was no war crimes ever committed there.
I hear every once in a whhile of Jane Fonda by repubs and what they sounds like she did do treason but then again its heresay since I don't know about her.

Now on to reason 1 you made:
Reason #1: The Clintons have taken over the campaign staff for Kerry. We all know that the main goal of the Clintons is to have Hillary as President and she can't wait until 2012, and even then she will have to run against Edwards. No, the time for the Clintons is in 2008.
Clintons can't run till 2012 so you point is moot. So what is this talk of 2008?
Next Clintons have not taken over but they are helping and I am glad they are good folk. Had a mistake or two but most nonpartisan people liked them as Presidency.

Reason #2: No coherent foreign policy. First its bring the troops home, even home from Europe and Korea. Bush rearranges troops in Germany and Asia and hes now against that.
He meant bring them home from Iraq soon. He did not mean from those countries that were paying us to live there! I mean we gave up money. When the country is in major debt?

If nothing else these attacks as you make them show that Kerry will rise above these baseless arguments. As he has done before and will do again, Kerry will get back up from the ashes of defeat (the attacks) as a Pheonix and make this country the great nation it once was.

Edit: since you did edit yours-
Reason #4: The whole premise of his campaign is flawed, He is asking us to vote for him becasue he served four months in a war that was virtually universally unpopular, a war he protested against himself, and war that somehow makes him qualified to be President.
Kerry is not running on Vietnam, repubs say he is, but he isn't. He has many issues and ideas that he is running on.
Truth: its just one the factors he is running on.
And actually it does show he can be a good leader since he was a troop leader in Vietnam. I don't know if he was one for long though.

Reason #1: The Clintons have taken over the campaign staff for Kerry. We all know that the main goal of the Clintons is to have Hillary as President and she can't wait until 2012, and even then she will have to run against Edwards. No, the time for the Clintons is in 2008.

Please stop getting your news from Rush Limbaugh. Several Clinton aides have joined the Kerry campaign to work the same magic which helped get Clinton elected twice. How that serves as evidence for some great scheme I have no idea.

Reason #2: No coherent foreign policy. First its bring the troops home, even home from Europe and Korea. Bush rearranges troops in Germany and Asia and hes now against that.

Yes. I am against Bush pulling troops out of safe foreign countries to bring them home when we need them in Iraq. Kerry however believes that we should be able to bring some troops home because NATO and the UN will provide troops to replace them with, which Bush has dismissed an even a possibility.

He comes out 3 weeks ago saying that he would still have voted for war in Iraq knowing all that we know today.
Dean says in the primary season that Iraq was the wrong place at the wrong time. Kerry denounces that view and takes a more moderate stance. Today, he virtually lifts Dean's comments from last December.

So it is patriotic and strong that Bush maintains this, but weak and bad when Kerry does it. Right. Kerry maintains that going to war was correct or at least acceptable, but that after that the job has been mangled. He is in favor of fighting the war right instead of not fighting it at all, which Dean stood for. Read some of his speeches to see how often he mentions this: "W stands for wrong" and so forth.


Reason #3: The American public will come to realize that they can't vote for a traitor. Definition of traitor in the Constitution: anyone who gives aid or comfort to the enemy.

Well then I consider Bush a traitor because he should have been drafted and fought but instead dodged it, thus aiding the enemy by not fighting them. Likewise every other draft dodger, including Clinton and all those NeoCon hawks.

What does Kerry do when he gets home from Vietnam, he denounce our warriors as murderous thugs who raped and pillaged the countryside of Vietnam.

So those who revealed the Abu Graib situation were also traitors? It is now treason to report the truth, if the truth isn't friendly?


Tapes of his testimony were played in front of our POW's, they gave the North Vietnamese the will to fight on, knowing that there was a massive peace movement in the US.

Yes, Kerry single-handedly maintained the will to fight in millions of starving illiterate Vietnamese. Because no one like say the North Vietnamese government would have influence over those guerillas; it was 100% John Kerry. Also I must call into question your claim that any significant number watched tapes of Kerry doing anything, given

1: There were probably about 0 television sets in the middle of the war zones.
2: There were maybe 10,000 TV sets in all of North Vietnam, MAX.
3: Even if they saw it, they don't speak English.
4: Giving fighters tapes meant to inspire their will to fight would take up room you could be using to send bullets.
5: They were already plenty damn well motivated by the concept of the dialectic struggle and the fact that they were killing the Grand High Enemy of global communism.


That is what I call aid and comfort to the enemy. He met with the commies in Paris, and his picture hangs in a Vietnamese museum dedicated to the war, in an area that is dedicated to all the overseas protestors who helped them win the war for communism.

Can you prove any of these ridiculous statements? I doubt it, but please go ahead and surprise me.


EDIT: They did an investigation, (the US and Vietnamese govts) and found that the Viet Cong fellow that Kerry shot to death, was shot even though he had dropped his weapon and was surrendering, he didn't pose threat. Hence his death at the hands of John Kerry, constitutes a war crime.

I'm sorry, but how the FUCK could any investigation decide anything about an event which happened in the middle of an uncharted jungle millions of miles away, in a firefight? That's like holding an "investigation" and finding out that Private Joe Smith shot a "harmless" German at the Battle of Bastogne and calling him a criminal for it. Given the type of stuff the Vietcong pulled in Vietnam (booby traps, fake uniforms, tunnelling underground, suicide squads) I believe it was general policy to believe than any Vietcong member with or near a weapon was a threat and to be treated accordingly.

They did an investigation, (the US and Vietnamese govts) and found that the Viet Cong fellow that Kerry shot to death, was shot even though he had dropped his weapon and was surrendering, he didn't pose threat. Hence his death at the hands of John Kerry, constitutes a war crime.

These are the same people that did a 4 year investigation into War Crimes by some special unit and then dropped ALL charges.

But I would like a source, that's pretty interesting.

Clintons can't run till 2012 so you point is moot. So what is this talk of 2008?
Next Clintons have not taken over but they are helping and I am glad they are good folk. Had a mistake or two but most nonpartisan people liked them as Presidency.

Why 2012? I would expect the Clinton's are hoping for a narrow Republican win and to charge in to save the day in 2008 with Hillary.

Reason #1: The Clintons have taken over the campaign staff for Kerry. We all know that the main goal of the Clintons is to have Hillary as President and she can't wait until 2012, and even then she will have to run against Edwards. No, the time for the Clintons is in 2008.

Reason #2: No coherent foreign policy. First its bring the troops home, even home from Europe and Korea. Bush rearranges troops in Germany and Asia and hes now against that.

He comes out 3 weeks ago saying that he would still have voted for war in Iraq knowing all that we know today.

Dean says in the primary season that Iraq was the wrong place at the wrong time. Kerry denounces that view and takes a more moderate stance. Today, he virtually lifts Dean's comments from last December.

Reason #3: The American public will come to realize that they can't vote for a traitor. Definition of traitor in the Constitution: anyone who gives aid or comfort to the enemy. What does Kerry do when he gets home from Vietnam, he denounce our warriors as murderous thugs who raped and pillaged the countryside of Vietnam. Tapes of his testimony were played in front of our POW's, they gave the North Vietnamese the will to fight on, knowing that there was a massive peace movement in the US. That is what I call aid and comfort to the enemy. He met with the commies in Paris, and his picture hangs in a Vietnamese museum dedicated to the war, in an area that is dedicated to all the overseas protestors who helped them win the war for communism.

Reason #4: The whole premise of his campaign is flawed, He is asking us to vote for him becasue he served four months in a war that was virtually universally unpopular, a war he protested against himself, and war that somehow makes him qualified to be President.

Say, I have four months training to be a pilot. That doesn't make me qualified to be a 747 pilot now does it? Well four months in the military shouldn't be the only qualification for being president.

Now these are real issues that are facing Kerry, instead of the W stands for wrong claims of Kerry. Real quick, that whole slogan doesn't make sense in saying it. The word wrong has a silent "w", albeit the slogan makes sense in writing, but not in saying it.

All those and the fact that John Kerry is an admitted war criminal. The American people are not going to elect a war criminal to the White House.

Why 2012? I would expect the Clinton's are hoping for a narrow Republican win and to charge in to save the day in 2008 with Hillary.
What the fuck is with the republican obsession with Clinton. He's not god, ya know.

These are the same people that did a 4 year investigation into War Crimes by some special unit and then dropped ALL charges.

But I would like a source, that's pretty interesting.
The charges were dropped due to political pressure from powerful democrat politicians.

Are you calling all 250,000 protestors in New York traitors, or are they just doing their civic duty and using their civil rights?

They must give comfort to those Iraqi's who see a large peace movement, right?

Besides the fact that this comment is completely off topic, I'll descend to your level. I never called them traitors, I'll leave that judgement to you using the definition provided by the Constitution.

I will make this comment, I find it quite ironic and remarkably funny that "peace" protestors are the first ones to throw punches. It was true in 1968, and its true in 2004.

All those and the fact that John Kerry is an admitted war criminal. The American people are not going to elect a war criminal to the White House.
Sure they are, they elected a man who brung a admitted murderers to office by the de facto of Bush has a wife named Laura. Oh you didn't hear she killed someone while drunk driving in youth, running a red light, etc. She got off though due to money but it happened.

All those and the fact that John Kerry is an admitted war criminal. The American people are not going to elect a war criminal to the White House.

I love that. "Admitted" war criminal.

Kerry stated for the record that EVERY SINGLE GODDAMNED TROOP IN THE ENTIRE ARMY was breaking parts of the Geneva Accord. So you are stating that every single Vietnam veteran is a war criminal, by agreeing with him.

If he had disobeyed those orders you would call him a traitor. Because he obeyed them you call him a war criminal. How about blaming those who set the orders down in the first place?

Kerry's time in Vietnam showed more leadership potential than Bush's 40-odd years of screwing up one company after another with Daddy's money, using Daddy's influence to dodge the draft, and generally getting stone-cold drunk whenever he could.


The charges were dropped due to political pressure from powerful democrat politicians.

Prove it.

What the fuck is with the republican obsession with Clinton. He's not god, ya know.

He is in the democratic party right now. With Hillary getting elected to the senate a couple years back, you know she is setting to run on the White House. With the unpopular candidates we've had, she's probably got a decent shot. So why wait until 2012?

He is in the democratic party right now. With Hillary getting elected to the senate a couple years back, you know she is setting to run on the White House. With the unpopular candidates we've had, she's probably got a decent shot. So why wait until 2012?
Because she promised she had to sdtaty a couple years to be senator for her state. 2012 she can go without major problems.
And yes the Clintonms are Gods! They control everything, they even control reoublicans, Bush is being controlled right now, whahahaha!
Just joking, :)

The solution to all of this is simple: the north should have let the south go.

PEOPLE ARE FUCKING STUPID


that is all

Hillary Clinton has no designs on the White House and I defy anyone to show proof that she does. She has stated on numerous occasions that she feels her place is in the US Senate. In the Senate, she has more power than she would ever have in the White House.

Reason #1: The Clintons have taken over the campaign staff for Kerry. We all know that the main goal of the Clintons is to have Hillary as President and she can't wait until 2012, and even then she will have to run against Edwards. No, the time for the Clintons is in 2008.


You have to love conspiracy theorists. What scares me is they seem to believe their own delusions....




Reason #2: No coherent foreign policy. First its bring the troops home, even home from Europe and Korea. Bush rearranges troops in Germany and Asia and hes now against that.


Actually I think his foreign policy aims have been the strong point of his run for the Presidency. He has said from the very begining that he intends to build bridges and not walls. Essentially qualifying that by saying he is going to work with our allies past and present and try to repair the damage done by the Bush Presidency. Lets see what the Bush Presidency says.....*still waiting*

Please if you want to talk about no coherent foreign policy please start analyzing GW's positions. The only foreign policy I see from GW is exporting our jobs overseas, instituting a backdoor draft to fight G W's war in Iraq and protecting the interests of haliburton and the pharmaceutical companies. Its absolutely rediculous and its indefensible that G W signed a ban on buying perscription medicines in Canada WHERE IT IS AS MUCH AS 300 times cheaper!



He comes out 3 weeks ago saying that he would still have voted for war in Iraq knowing all that we know today.


Yeah he deserves criticism on this one. He deserves it and is being clubbed over the head for it. I hope he learns his lesson.




Dean says in the primary season that Iraq was the wrong place at the wrong time. Kerry denounces that view and takes a more moderate stance. Today, he virtually lifts Dean's comments from last December.


Well then I agree with Dean so I guess its one more reason to vote for Kerry then.





Reason #3: The American public will come to realize that they can't vote for a traitor. Definition of traitor in the Constitution: anyone who gives aid or comfort to the enemy. What does Kerry do when he gets home from Vietnam, he denounce our warriors as murderous thugs who raped and pillaged the countryside of Vietnam. Tapes of his testimony were played in front of our POW's, they gave the North Vietnamese the will to fight on, knowing that there was a massive peace movement in the US. That is what I call aid and comfort to the enemy. He met with the commies in Paris, and his picture hangs in a Vietnamese museum dedicated to the war, in an area that is dedicated to all the overseas protestors who helped them win the war for communism.


That isn't the legal definition of treason. Do you know what the legal definition of treason is? If you reply to this start with that. Furthermore using that definition anyone is a traitor who doesn't agree with you. That sir is a treasonous ideal because it directly slaps some of the principles of the consitution and the bill of rights. Specifically being able to speak out on what you see that is wrong. Following your line of reason I guess the Micheal Moore is a traitor to. I mean his movie is being played in Lebanon as well as every other country in the world. So his free speech following your line of reason is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Enemies such as Hezbollah.

I think its ones moral and ethical responsibility to exercise your 1st amendment rights and you know what, alot of people agree with John Kerry. Historians and soldiers alike say he is right. I guess they are traitors to?
Treason isn't testifying in congress as to what you have seen and done. Treason isn't coming out and saying you have seen grievious wrongs committed. In fact I think the American public deserved to know the truth of what was happening and I am damn glad they were told.





Reason #4: The whole premise of his campaign is flawed, He is asking us to vote for him becasue he served four months in a war that was virtually universally unpopular, a war he protested against himself, and war that somehow makes him qualified to be President.


I am an unashamed christian to, and I am not ashamed to say that your a liar. I call you a liar sir, just as I call anyone who stands before the american people and without shame says that John Kerry stated that he would ask permission from France to use the American Military. His whole campaign isn't asking you to vote for him for his military service.

To say so is a lie. Lieing is worse then flip flopping by the way. This election is about idea and ideals. Ideas that G W Bush seems to not want to discuss. Again we heard no mention of what G W is going to do in regards to the "giant sucking sound" that Ross Periot told a great many Americans about just a few years ago. Yes some MAY vote for John Kerry because of his military record. A record even GW Bush is not disupting in any way shape or form. That is their business, however I am not voting Kerry because Kerry asked me to vote for him based on his record. I am voting for him because of his platform, not his war record. A platform that addresses the single greatest issue of our time. Which isn't terrorism. The single greatest issue of our time is corporations neglecting their corporate duty to feed their avarice. Exporting jobs to other countries to feed the greed of shareholders. That is the reason John Kerry is asking me to vote for him. That is one of the many issues that I find fault with the G W on. Those are true family values. For stability in the family follows from stability at the workplace. Why won't G W even say a word about corporate outsourcing and what he is going to do to stop it?

The charges were dropped due to political pressure from powerful democrat politicians.

Yum yum yum!

I do love Conspiracy theories!

Where are the Manchurian Candidate analogies going to happen?

PEOPLE ARE FUCKING STUPID


that is all

:eek:

It took you this long to figure it out?

:p

Because she promised she had to sdtaty a couple years to be senator for her state. 2012 she can go without major problems.
And yes the Clintonms are Gods! They control everything, they even control reoublicans, Bush is being controlled right now, whahahaha!
Just joking, :)


Sadly I think they really believe that :headbang:

Wouldn't it be better to wait until after the election before declaring a result, hmm?

I also suggest you keep track here:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

By all accounts, it's still way too damn close to know.

Bookmark that site, it updates daily, and they keep track of all polls. Hit refresh a lot.

How sad it is when people consider Newsmax to be a reputable news source--you wind up with posts like Unashamed Christians' and Whittier's.

Why Kerry Will Not Win...Why? Because there are not enough people in the US realizing that there is actually a world beyond their own country's borders.

With Hillary getting elected to the senate a couple years back, you know she is setting to run on the White House.

Wow, Grebonia, you're posting information that she hasn't said. Are you on her staff?

I REPEAT:

Hillary Clinton has no designs on the White House and I defy anyone to show proof that she does. She has stated on numerous occasions that she feels her place is in the US Senate. In the Senate, she has more power than she would ever have in the White House.

If anyone can figure out how to make neocon idiots actually listen to something other than their own farts, I'm going to make sure that person is nominated for a Nobel prize of some sort.

Why? Because there are not enough people in the US realizing that there is actually a world beyond their own country's borders.
No, because people are going to vote who they think is best and not who people in other countries think is best. I decide in the same way in my country. I don´t care what the opinion in other countries is. Why should I?
It is a national election and not a world election. There is not such a thing. We are a world of sovereign nation states. And everyone acts in a way that it thinks it to be in its own interests.

Sentient Non-Idiots For Kerry
Repubs pick a fight about Vietnam while Bush ruins America right now? Is the nation drunk?

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, August 27, 2004


And isn't it funny how at least 13 members of Congress have actually requested that the United Nations monitor this year's U.S. presidential election, just because, just in case, just to ensure there's no voter rolling and election rigging and chad hanging and outright shameless Florida reaming like last time? And isn't it even more funny how, when firebrand U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown, from Florida, brought the issue up on the floor of Congress, she was actually shouted down by the Republicans, scolded that she was out of order and told her comments should be stricken from the record?
And they all screamed and stomped and huffed and puffed and said no way should there be any oversight of this year's election, even though there is indeed a gross pile of mounting evidence that there's nothing stopping BushCo from simply stealing the election all over again. Isn't that funny?
It's enough to make you laugh 'til you gag. And choke.
And move to Canada.
And isn't it hilarious how the absolute worst thing the Right has been able to dredge up about John Kerry is that he might sort of maybe have exaggerated some facts about his various Vietnam medals and acts of and valor and deeds of astounding heroism, which is sort of like saying well sure you saved 10 babies from that burning building, but jeez, you were wearing special shoes at the time and by the way couldn't you have saved 11? Traitor!
And how hard should we guffaw while we note that, as Kerry was volunteering in Vietnam and earning his medals and risking his life in the most volatile and ugly and pointless and lethal and hideous war in American history unless you count Iraq, which you really really should, Dubya was "serving" in the Air National Guard, which we all know translates to mean "hangin' down in Tijuana slamming tequila shooters and annoying the waitresses, all while praising Jesus that he had a daddy who could keep him away from scary complicated violent stuff."
Whoa. Let me take that back. That was totally out of line and inappropriate and disrespectful of our fine incoherent president, and I have absolutely no proof that Dubya was such an embarrassment, such an incompetent AWOL serviceman. Very sorry.
After all, as I've mentioned in this column before, no one really knows what Bush was doing all those blurry, gin-soaked years in the National Guard. No one knows, because all of Dubya's military-service records just recently disappeared from Pentagon archives. Poof! Just like that! And then some of the missing payroll records were magically "found" again, though they still don't answer any questions regarding Bush's whereabouts that year. Imagine! Isn't it funny? What a thing.
So, let's see: Bona-fide war hero turned incredibly articulate, educated, gifted Vietnam War protester and respected senator on one side, alcoholic AWOL failed-businessman born-again pampered daddy's boy evangelical Christian on the other. Is this really the contest? Bush slugs gin and tonics like Evian while Kerry is accused of ... what again? Not being incredibly heroic enough? Wow.
This is not, apparently, a hallucination. Kerry really is being forced to defend his well-documented war record, despite how all the proofs are there, in public view, on the candidate's own Web site, with nothing to hide and for all to see, whereas Dubya was (and still is) a famously inept embarrassment to the military, and is being forced to defend nothing about his own spoiled spoon-fed life, as he humiliates the nation at every utterance and attacks Kerry (and, by extension, John McCain) via GOP-sponsored henchmen while large chunks of his own embarrassing records have just, um, "disappeared."
What, too bitter? Resentful? Too much like I advocate stringing Karl Rove up by his large intestine and slapping him with a rainbow flag until he cries? All apologies.
Hey, it happens. Sometimes you just gotta purge. Vent. Let it all out. Because, really, it all makes you ask: Is everyone on drugs? Mass delusional? Are we just blind? Or is the vicious GOP spin machine really that powerful? Why, yes, yes, it is. And isn't it just the funniest thing?
But, wait, there's more. The GOP is also accusing Kerry of a nasty bout of "flip flopping" on a handful of issues. Griping that he's changed his mind on a few key pieces of legislation, not the least of which is his support for war on Iraq. And the USA Patriot Act.
Which is, you know, sort of true. But, then again, not really, not considering how nearly every single congressperson was equally duped by the vicious GOP war machine, the outright WMD lies and BushCo's post-9/11 propaganda and the invidious USA Patriot Act midnight ream-through. Hell, Kerry was just as misled as the rest of us. Is Kerry culpable for his own choices and for making errors in judgment and for not always being absolutely flawlessly progressive in his decisions? Hell, yes. But does his record of such errors pale in comparison to Bush's mile-high ream of lies and flip-flops and outright slaps in the face of your humanity? Oh my God yes, yes, it does.
But lo, let us not hold back any longer. Let us now laugh out loud, hold our sides in pain, gasp for air as we look at the BushCo "flip flop" record, in sum. Let us observe the short list of issues about which BushCo has either completely reversed his position, or has simply openly lied to the nation about to further his administration's shockingly small-minded, self-serving corporate agenda:
The creation of the 9/11 commission. The Iraq WMD investigation. The Israeli/Palestine conflict. Nation building. Same-sex marriage. Veterans' benefits. The value of Osama bin Laden. The Saddam/al Qaeda link. North Korea. The U.N. vote on Iraq. "Mission accomplished." Ahmed Chalabi. Steel tariffs. The Department of Homeland Security. Campaign-finance reform. Energy policy. Hybrid cars. The deficit. Assault weapons. Abortion. Science. Global warming. The environment.
And the list, as they say, goes on. And on. And on.
It's a masterful deflection by the GOP spin doctors, really, away from Bush's truly appalling record of flagrant deceit and his title as the hands-down worse environmental president in the history of the United States, toward Kerry's much more highly respected record, wherein he has, among other accomplishments, earned the highest possible rating from various international environmental groups.
And, finally, isn't it funny -- in a nauseating, soul-mauling sort of way -- that 52 American soldiers have died in BushCo's completely useless little Iraq war just this month alone. How very touching, their noble sacrifice. Too bad Bush doesn't care. Let us just laugh and laugh at how the media barely covers these pedestrian, boring deaths anymore, instead allowing the GOP to turn the debate into one about a miserable, lost war that happened nearly 30 years ago, all while U.S. soldiers continue to die every day, right now, for no justifiable reason whatsoever.
Yes, let us laugh until we cry. Let us note how the Bush-induced death toll is now up to 964 U.S. soldiers -- a staggering 855 above the total since the infamous, insulting "Mission accomplished" quip -- which is, if the GOP plays it just so, right on track to reach 1,000 U.S. dead by the time the Republican convention kicks into high gear. What fun!
And that 1,000th soldier will fall in abject pain, his or her life utterly wasted for a cause that never really existed, that no one actually believes in, that was all built on a lie to begin with. And he or she will die just as all the war hawks and all the right-wing homophobes and all the cigar-chompin' corporate CEOs gather in New York and pop their champagne and cheer the true triumvirate o' GOP happiness: God, guns and money.
Yes, it's enough to make you laugh out loud. Until you don't.

? Thoughts for the author? E-mail him.
? Mark's column archives are here
Mark Morford's Notes & Errata column appears every
Wednesday and Friday on SF Gate, unless it appears on
Tuesdays and Thursdays, which it never does. Subscribe
to this column at sfgate.com/newsletters.
_________________