Well Well Lil Dubya caught in a tight spot AGAIN

[Derek Bodner]

The demo's put Michael Moore on stage with them to try and give credence to his movie which Moore tries to paint as fact rather than fiction.

And I don't agree with anything Michael Moore does.

Demo's are trying to play Kerry's war record as a TRUMP card when their last presidential representative was a draft dodger who ran to Canada. You don't see hypocrisy in that?

What do prior years have to do with the debate this year?  Does every candidate nominated from now until the end of time have to mirror Bill Clinton?  

Not to mention the obvious answer that the ability to perform the duties of the commander in chief were not as necessary of an issue in 1996 as they are now.

[Guest_Randy]

Not to mention the obvious answer that the ability to perform the duties of the commander in chief were not as necessary of an issue in 1996 as they are now.

Okay, to say that it is even more imperative, sure, I'll go along with that analysis but the duties of commander in chief are ALWAYS paramount as the leader of the world peacekeeping, the primary leader in the UN and NATO, etc.  I think the duties of commander in chief have been spotlighted but the ability to perform these duties have ALWAYS been a huge part of this job.

What do prior years have to do with the debate this year? Does every candidate nominated from now until the end of time have to mirror Bill Clinton?

Your past ALWAYS comes back to bite you if you choose to change direction without owning up to it -- ESPECIALLY when you want to state that in one breath that wartime record doesn't make any difference (because your candidate dodged the draft) and then state in the next breath that the REASON we should elect the next guy is because of his war record.  Pretty funny if you ask me -- you don't think so?

 

[Derek Bodner]

You're assuming far too much Randy.

You're assuming that the nominee speaks for everyone in that party.  That is not the case.  Not every republican agrees with Drinking and Driving just because George Bush Jr did it once when he was a kid.

You're not nominating a candidate because he is correct in every issue and believes in every single issue you believe in as well.

And priority's DO change.

The reason Bush's Vietnam record has serious significance is because HE led out forces into combat.  So since George Bush's combat record comes into conflict, so does the candidate he's running against.

Times change, and the needs of the people change with these times.  Had the Dole/Clinton election gone on at this time, Dole's war record would have become more of an issue.

What, since the Demo's elected a draft dodger in 1992 and 1996, and the Reps elected a draft dodger in 2000, does that mean neither party can ever run on the basis of military service?

Times are different.  Party needs are different.  Civilian needs are different.  And the candidates are different.

[spursfan101]

Different yes, but they share one common denominator.  They both SUCK.

[Guest_Randy]

You're assuming far too much Randy.

You're assuming that the nominee speaks for everyone in that party.  That is not the case.  Not every republican agrees with Drinking and Driving just because George Bush Jr did it once when he was a kid.

You're not nominating a candidate because he is correct in every issue and believes in every single issue you believe in as well.

And priority's DO change.

The reason Bush's Vietnam record has serious significance is because HE led out forces into combat.  So since George Bush's combat record comes into conflict, so does the candidate he's running against.

Times change, and the needs of the people change with these times.  Had the Dole/Clinton election gone on at this time, Dole's war record would have become more of an issue.

What, since the Demo's elected a draft dodger in 1992 and 1996, and the Reps elected a draft dodger in 2000, does that mean neither party can ever run on the basis of military service?

Times are different.  Party needs are different.  Civilian needs are different.  And the candidates are different.

You're assuming that the nominee speaks for everyone in that party.  That is not the case.  Not every republican agrees with Drinking and Driving just because George Bush Jr did it once when he was a kid.

It's not my assumption that the democratic party is now stating that a war record IS important (after previously declaring it WASN'T important).  Clinton didn't do that -- the democratic party did that -- same thing is true with the demos today.  That's not an assumption -- that was plastered over the entire democratic convention.  And how does drinking and driving even fit into this conversation?  When did Bush ever tout drinking and driving?  It's not JUST Kerry talking about the importance of a military record -- it's the democratic party.  The same party who is trying to decapitate Bush for staying home during Vietnam while Kerry went to war (even though they didn't have a problem with Clinton dodging the draft).  Call it what you want but THAT'S hypocrisy!

Times are different.  Party needs are different.  Civilian needs are different.  And the candidates are different.

Sorry, I just don't buy all this.  Have some things changed?  Sure, but a HUGE part of a presidents duties are ALWAYS going to be Commander and Chief -- has been since George Washington was president and always will be.  It's just really really funny when a party (either one) decides to say it's not a big deal and then turn around and say it is.  Guess what?  If their next candidate is another draft dodger, it won't be a big deal again, will it?  This has NOTHING to do with the "times," "needs," -- it has EVERYTHING to do with politics.  And it bothers me that there is no integrity in politics!

[westkoast]

Randy I think you are missing the point.  When Clinton was elected we weren't fighting in any country.  We also we not sitting our fanny's in Afganistan and we also weren't threatning other countries.  Right now we are.  While you are right that they didnt make it an issue before its because of the situation.  While the Demo's wanted to "floss" Kerry's military service, it was the Rep. that took it to a whole new level by backing the ads that have caused such a stir in the media lately.

[JoMal]

Does anyone else question these politico's agendas regarding what the American public really wants in a president and what the public actually wants?

You are bringing up Bill Clinton. Okay, think about it. He was elected over the first George Bush right after Bush senior...... waged a war against Iraq. With Communist USSR gone, the first thing we did was go to war against another country with no fear of reprisals coming from nasty Russia. While Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was grounds for some response, because we took the lead in that action, we created much of the terrorist problems with Al Qaida we face now over it.

Plus, it did absolutely no good for George Sr. in his reelection year. Hmmm.

Now Jr. is playing that tough U.S. president, swaggering up to the microphone to announce another "Cowboy Bob" decision that warns the world it had better beware of Bushy's reprisals, or else.

Maybe the American public does not want to just envision our Commander-in-Chief candidates with their trigger fingers poised over the button of destruction. Maybe the war records of Bush and Kerry and how heroic one was in Vietnam and how "tough" the other one has been in combating terrorism isn't what the American public wants to hear.

Maybe they would prefer to see how the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet wields that power without making our allies cring and our enemies regroup.

I don't know, maybe a "Peace" plan, instead of a "Continuation of War" plan might be what most Americans want to hear stated by these candidates, instead of which candidate clearly has the bigger balls to blow up something or someone up to show the world we can, so there. :crazy: