Heard John Kerry on talk radio during lunch. On the subject of their possibly being a "bloodbath" in Iraq, similar to what happened in Vietnam and Cambodia, if we were to pull out Kerry said, and I'm paraphrasing:

First, I'm not sure there was that much of a bloodbath in Vietnam or Cambodia. There were reeducation camps, sure, and they weren't pretty, but I've talked to people who were in the reeducation camps and they are surviving and enjoying their lives in today's Vietnam.

That is absolutely stunning and terrifying stuff from a "leading" American politician. As far as the bloodbath, I'm pretty sure I just watched a documentary on the roughly 1.5 million people slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge (which was only part of the killing that took place on or around the Vietnam peninsula after we tucked tail). And here is one description of the camps that weren't "pretty": Vietnam Reeducation Camps. Sure, I'll grant you that many on the far right view the world in too much black and white, but when those on the left (I would say far left but I think I can consider the last Democratic presidential candidate mainstream) lose all sense of good and evil it can be just as scary and disastrous. Can't we all agree that "reeducation camps" are evil, and that preventing them is, therefore, good? Whether you want U.S. troops involved in that is another argument all together...and a valid one to have.

Don't expect the Democrats to chastise Kerry. Also, don't expect the radical leftists to sympathize with the millions that were killed by Pol Pot. A few million dead is worth it to progress Communism, don'tcha know?

RebelKev Wrote:Don't expect the Democrats to chastise Kerry. Also, don't expect the radical leftists to sympathize with the millions that were killed by Pol Pot. A few million dead is worth it to progress Communism, don'tcha know?

Da, comrade!

winning in 2008, and everything that goes with it including nominating activist judges to the courts trumps any long-term US interest, US standing as 'world leader' and the lives of innoncents who we would be turning over to AQ, Iran/Syria and other radicals from the region.

We live in a post-modern culture(i.e. no meaning), nothing should suprise about conclusions people draw from that.

As a person that voted for Kerry in 2004, I can tell you many democrats did it with reservation but he was thought to be better than the alternative. He was a terrible candidate the dug his own grave when he talked. Perhaps that's Bush's strong point that he doesn't talk much, therefore he can't stick his own foot in his mouth as much. What's the old saying "You can't stick your foot in your mouth if it's shut"?

Kerry was a bad candidate.

JTiger Wrote:Perhaps that's Bush's strong point that he doesn't talk much, therefore he can't stick his own foot in his mouth as much.

I disagree. In a war I think is one of the most important in our lives, I think his ass should be in front of the TV talking to the American people at least 3 times a week. Not the press, the American people.

I agree Kev... Unfortunately, while he may be affable, he is FAR from "the great communicator" that RR was. One of the reasons I am intrigued by Fred Thompson.

Let's face it... we get who we get for political office because they say what we want them to say, and then do something else, because none of US are going to read through a 4,000 page bill to see if they are doing what they said they would. Bush may be a nice guy with his heart AND perhaps even his head in the right place, but he's one of the worst "salesmen" I've ever seen... People voted for him because despite his priveledged background, he came across as "a common man". When the problems we are faced with require turning EXTREMELY complex global interactions into sound-bytes that fit on bumper-stickers... he isn't your guy.... but neither is the guy who voted FOR the bill, before he voted AGAINST the bill.

You have to make a decision, and then you have to figure out how to sell it to Joe Six-Pack. THAT man runs a company like GE, not the USA.

RebelKev Wrote:

JTiger Wrote:Perhaps that's Bush's strong point that he doesn't talk much, therefore he can't stick his own foot in his mouth as much.

I disagree. In a war I think is one of the most important in our lives, I think his ass should be in front of the TV talking to the American people at least 3 times a week. Not the press, the American people.

I think if he gave the Patton speech i linked in other thread his approval rating would jump 20 points over night. The sad reality of the day we live in is we are governed by the PC police and relativistic thinking in popular culture(something that is plainly stupid and self-refuting at that), a guy like Patton could never become General today for the same reason the President can't/won't say what needs to be said.

His communications skills suck and the media's stupidity and world views are just as bad if not worse, he did a good job of rallying the military but piss poor at rallying the public. I wonder if they thought the patriotic 'mood' of the country post 9/11 would last indefinitely or something, little did they know American Idol was right around the corner.

GGniner Wrote:I think if he gave the Patton speech i linked in other thread his approval rating would jump 20 points over night.

2nd!! But could you imagine the global "hand-wringing" over a President saying we will use the guts of our enemies to grease our wheels, and that the goal of war is not to die for your country but to make sure the other poor bastard does? It's true stuff, and necessary to overcome bloodthirsty foes, but the nannies in the U.N. would have a field-day.

RebelKev Wrote:

JTiger Wrote:Perhaps that's Bush's strong point that he doesn't talk much, therefore he can't stick his own foot in his mouth as much.

I disagree. In a war I think is one of the most important in our lives, I think his ass should be in front of the TV talking to the American people at least 3 times a week. Not the press, the American people.

Do you mean the global war on terror or Iraq? Two different things when they started.

Either way, Bush is a terrible communicator and hasn't won the other side of the war which is the public perception war at home. If you don't have that, you can't win. He needs to work on that REALLY BAD, but it may be too late for him. I think he is perceived as stubborn and unwilling to admit a mistake and it will take some humility on his part to win over the public again. He's done it once and he can do it again, hopefully.

JTiger Wrote:Do you mean the global war on terror or Iraq? Two different things when they started.

Either way, Bush is a terrible communicator and hasn't won the other side of the war which is the public perception war at home. If you don't have that, you can't win. He needs to work on that REALLY BAD, but it may be too late for him. I think he is perceived as stubborn and unwilling to admit a mistake and it will take some humility on his part to win over the public again. He's done it once and he can do it again, hopefully.

No it wasn't. Iraq was always part of the GWOT. It doesn't just end with Afghanistan either. It's a Hydra-headed front to confront the enemy, financially, militarily, and logistically. Sure, there are problems here and there, but it's to be expected. There has never been a flawless war.

....but yeah, Bush is a piss-poor communicator who could have at least spoke to the American people more often. Again, not the GDamn press /Patton, the American people.