Quote:
Originally posted by Mike AI@May 10 2004, 04:11 PM
PD, I have read accounts by those who served with JK, they were not that flattering.
I beleive there was a public letter written and signed by over 20 people who servered directly under or above Kerry in Vietnam and all of them said he was unfit to be President. Many of the people who signed this letter are apolitical, some are even democrats.
Bush is a strong leader. Is he effective? Has he made mistakes? Is he hard headed? These are all issues that are on the table.
I know its easier for you to beleive he is a mindless robot controled by special oil interests.
|
I'm quite sure you have read ONLY those reports about John Kerry that portray him in a negative light, Mike. How much of that letter (which I have read) is due to politics, disapproval of him taking the option to leave after the 3rd time wounded, or his actions when he returned from and began to publicly oppose the war, will never be known. There are just as many who say differently.
Still haven't found anybody who remembers dubya while he fulfilled the valiant role of defending the souther border of the United States from the Mexican Air Force, however.
I realize that in Mike's world this whole thought may just be too complex, but I don't believe that George Bush is mindless, and while I believe he, like most any politician, dances to the fiddlers that are playing at his dance (oil industries being one of several), I don't see his administration as one vast conspiracy.
Let me put it to you this way ... I believe that my opinion of GW is far more complex than your opinion of John Kerry.
As far as "effective" goes - if he isn't effective, he isn't a leader regardless of how strong he may be - in that case, strong just suggests pigheadedness. I'm sure the leadership of the Polish horse cavalry that charged Nazi tanks in September, 1939, had strong leaders. I am quite sure that George Armstrong Custer was a strong leader.
Of more importance to the issue in Iraq, the French politicians and generals who ordered offensive after offensive in World War I were strong leaders - and it cost them the next war.
So, enlighten me, Mikey. What (besides the fact that Ari McClellan/Scott Fliescher/every talking-point-programmed Republican has been repeating it for three years now) makes George Bush stand out as a "strong" leader? Of what value is strong leadership if it is ineffective?
And more important ... when did "strong" replace "focus?" as the word to be repeated so often by the Republicans as to make one want to break something whenever you hear the word?
Last edited by PornoDoggy at May 10 2004, 04:41 PM