OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

Philosophy, Not Policy
Why Bush isn't good at interviews.

Sunday, February 8, 2004 4:30 p.m. EST
President Bush's interview on "Meet the Press" seems to me so much a
big-story-in-the-making that I wanted to weigh in with some thoughts. I am
one of those who feel his performance was not impressive.

It was an important interview. The president has been taking a beating for
two months now--two months of the nonstop commercial for the Democratic
Party that is the Democratic primaries, and then the Kay report. And so
people watched when he decided to come forward in a high stakes interview
with Tim Russert, the tough interviewer who's an equal-opportunity griller
of Democrats. He has heroic concentration and a face like a fist. His
interviews are Beltway events.

But certain facts of the interview were favorable to the president. Normally
it's mano a mano at Mr. Russert's interview table in the big, cold studio.
But this interview was in the Oval Office, on the president's home ground,
in front of the big desk. Normally it's live, which would be unnerving for a
normal person and is challenging for politicians. Live always raises the
stakes. But Mr. Bush's interview was taped. Saturday. Taped is easier. You
can actually say, "Can we stop for a second? Something in my eye."





You can find the transcript of the Bush-Russert interview all over the Web.
It reads better than it played. But six million people saw it, and many
millions more will see pieces of it, and they will not be the pieces in
which Mr. Bush looks good.
The president seemed tired, unsure and often bumbling. His answers were
repetitive, and when he tried to clarify them he tended to make them worse.
He did not seem prepared. He seemed in some way disconnected from the event.
When he was thrown the semisoftball question on his National Guard
experience--he's been thrown this question for 10 years now--he spoke in a
way that seemed detached. "It's politics." Well yes, we know that. Tell us
more.

I never expect Mr. Bush, in interviews, to be Tony Blair: eloquent, in the
moment, marshaling facts and arguments with seeming ease and reeling them
out with conviction and passion. Mr. Bush is less facile with language, as
we all know, less able to march out his facts to fight for him.

I don't think Mr. Bush's supporters expect that of him, or are disappointed
when he doesn't give it to them. So I'm not sure he disturbed his base. I
think he just failed to inspire his base. Which is serious enough--the base
was looking for inspiration, and needed it--but not exactly fatal.

Mr. Bush's supporters expect him to do well in speeches, and to inspire them
in speeches. And he has in the past. The recent State of the Union was a
good speech but not a great one, and because of that some Bush supporters
were disappointed. They put the bar high for Mr. Bush in speeches, and he
clears the bar. But his supporters don't really expect to be inspired by his
interviews.





The Big Russ interview will not be a big political story in terms of Bush
supporters suddenly turning away from their man. But it will be a big
political story in terms of the punditocracy and of news producers, who in
general don't like Mr. Bush anyway. Pundits will characterize this
interview, and press their characterization on history. They will compare it
to Teddy Kennedy floundering around with Roger Mudd in 1980 in the interview
that helped do in his presidential campaign. News producers will pick Mr.
Bush's sleepiest moments to repeat, and will feed their anchors questions
for tomorrow morning: "Why did Bush do badly, do you think?"
So Mr. Bush will have a few bad days of bad reviews ahead of him.

But I am thinking there are two kinds of minds in politics. There are those
who absorb and repeat their arguments and evidence--their talking
points--with vigor, engagement and certainty. And there are those who cannot
remember their talking points.

Those who cannot remember their talking points can still succeed as leaders
if they give good speeches. Speeches are more important in politics than
talking points, as a rule, and are better remembered.

Which gets me to Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan had a ready wit and lovely humor,
but he didn't as a rule give good interviews when he was president. He
couldn't remember his talking points. He was a non-talking-point guy. His
people would sit him down and rehearse all the fine points of Mideast policy
or Iran-contra and he'd say, "I know that, fine." And then he'd have a news
conference and the press would challenge him, or approach a question from an
unexpected angle, and he'd forget his talking points. And fumble. And the
press would smack him around: "He's losing it, he's old."

Dwight Eisenhower wasn't good at talking points either.

George W. Bush is not good at talking points. You can see when he's pressed
on a question. Mr. Russert asks, why don't you remove George Tenet? And Mr.
Bush blinks, and I think I know what is happening in his mind. He's
thinking: Go through history of intelligence failures. No, start with
endorsement of George so I don't forget it and cause a big story. No, point
out intelligence didn't work under Clinton. Mention that part of the Kay
report that I keep waiting for people to mention.

He knows he has to hit every point smoothly, but self-consciousness keep him
from smoothness. In real life, in the office, Mr. Bush is not
self-conscious. Nor was Mr. Reagan.





What we are looking at here is not quality of mind--Mr. Bush is as bright as
John Kerry, just as Mr. Reagan was as bright as Walter Mondale, who was very
good at talking points. They all are and were intelligent. Yet neither Mr.
Bush's interviews and press conferences nor Mr. Reagan's suggested anything
about what they were like in the office during a crisis: engaged, and tough.
It's something else.
John Kerry does good talking points. In interviews he's asked for his views
on tax cuts and he has it all there in his head in blocks of language that
cohere and build. It gets boring the 14th time you hear it, but he looks
capable. Hillary Clinton is great at talking points--she's the best, as her
husband was the best in his time.

Democrats have minds that do it through talking points, and Republicans have
minds that do speeches. (Mr. Bush has given a dozen memorable speeches
already; only one of his Democratic challengers has, and that was "I Have a
Scream.") And the reason--perhaps--is that Democratic candidates tend to
love the game of politics, and Republican candidates often don't. Democrats,
because they admire government and seek to be part of it, are inclined to
think the truth of life is in policy. How could they not then be engaged by
policy talk, and its talking points?

Republicans think politics is something you have to do and that policy is
something you have to have to move things forward in line with a philosophy.
They like philosophy. But they are bored by policy and hate having to
memorize talking points.

Speeches are the vehicle for philosophy. Interviews are the vehicle of
policy. Mr. Kerry does talking points and can't give an interesting speech.
Mr. Bush can't do talking points and gives speeches full of thought and
assertion.

Philosophy takes time. If you connect your answers in an interview to
philosophy, or go to philosophy first, you can look as if you're dodging the
question. You can forget the question. You can look a little gaga. But
policy doesn't take time. Policy is a machine gun--bip bip bip. Education
policy, bip bip bip. Next.

If I worked for President Bush I'd say spend the next nine months giving
speeches, and limit interviews. If I worked for Mr. Kerry I'd say give a lot
of interviews, be out there all the time, and don't try to wrap your points
up in a coherent philosophy, which is something a good speech demands.
Anyway, that's how I see it. Am I wrong? By the way, I've never been able to
stick to a talking point in a TV interview in my life.

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

"NOYB" wrote in message news:h8FVb.90243

Doc.... did you attach a .gif to your post above?

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

That would be my assumption.
The 'handlers' behind George W. are really calling the shots.....
Those are the scary people.

Harry Krause wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Philosophy, Not Policy
Why Bush isn't good at interviews.

Sunday, February 8, 2004 4:30 p.m. EST
President Bush's interview on "Meet the Press" seems to me so much a
big-story-in-the-making that I wanted to weigh in with some thoughts. I
am
one of those who feel his performance was not impressive.


An interesting piece indeed, but wrong. Bush is an idiot, and that's
what came across in Russert's interview.

The Iraq stuff will be played over and again. Here's the part I found
most telling:

"RUSSERT: The General Accounting Office, which are the nation's
auditors...

BUSH: Yes.

RUSSERT: ... have done a study of our finances. And this is what your
legacy will be to the next generation.

It says that our current fiscal policy is unsustainable. They did a
computer simulation that shows that balancing the budget in 2040 could
require either cutting total federal spending in half or doubling
federal taxes.

Why, as a fiscal conservative, as you like to call yourself, would you
allow a $500 billion deficit and this kind of deficit disaster?

BUSH: Sure. The budget I just proposed to the Congress cuts the deficit
in half in five years.

Now, I don't know what the assumptions are in the GAO report, but I do
know that if Congress is wise with the people's money, we can cut the
deficit in half. And at that point in time, as a percentage of GDP, the
deficit will be relatively low. "


Did you get that?

"I don't know what the assumptions are in the GAO report..."

Any CEO who admitted he didn't know what assumptions his company's
auditors were using in analyizing the company's financials would be
fired on the spot by the Board of Directors.

Of course, there was much, much more that indicated Bush's lack of
knowledge and general simplemindedness.

Perhaps even worse was the 60 Minutes report last night on the
evangelical Christians and their beliefs about the rest of us. These are
the lunatics who control the Republican Party these days...and they are
a really scary bunch.

Congratulations. The head of your party is a numnutz and his closest
allies and advisors are lunatics.










--
Email sent to is never read.

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Philosophy, Not Policy
Why Bush isn't good at interviews.

Sunday, February 8, 2004 4:30 p.m. EST
President Bush's interview on "Meet the Press" seems to me so much a
big-story-in-the-making that I wanted to weigh in with some thoughts. I
am
one of those who feel his performance was not impressive.


An interesting piece indeed, but wrong. Bush is an idiot, and that's
what came across in Russert's interview.

The Iraq stuff will be played over and again. Here's the part I found
most telling:

"RUSSERT: The General Accounting Office, which are the nation's
auditors...

BUSH: Yes.

RUSSERT: ... have done a study of our finances. And this is what your
legacy will be to the next generation.

It says that our current fiscal policy is unsustainable. They did a
computer simulation that shows that balancing the budget in 2040 could
require either cutting total federal spending in half or doubling
federal taxes.

Why, as a fiscal conservative, as you like to call yourself, would you
allow a $500 billion deficit and this kind of deficit disaster?

BUSH: Sure. The budget I just proposed to the Congress cuts the deficit
in half in five years.

Now, I don't know what the assumptions are in the GAO report, but I do
know that if Congress is wise with the people's money, we can cut the
deficit in half. And at that point in time, as a percentage of GDP, the
deficit will be relatively low. "


Did you get that?

"I don't know what the assumptions are in the GAO report..."

Any CEO who admitted he didn't know what assumptions his company's
auditors were using in analyizing the company's financials would be
fired on the spot by the Board of Directors.

Of course, there was much, much more that indicated Bush's lack of
knowledge and general simplemindedness.

Perhaps even worse was the 60 Minutes report last night on the
evangelical Christians and their beliefs about the rest of us. These are
the lunatics who control the Republican Party these days...and they are
a really scary bunch.

Congratulations. The head of your party is a numnutz and his closest
allies and advisors are lunatics.










--
Email sent to is never read.

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Congratulations. The head of your party is a numnutz and his closest
allies and advisors are lunatics.

The lunatic thing seems to be a normal, periodic occurrence. Sort of like
the fungus some trees get every few years, or the "storm of the decade".
Kissinger was very much "out there". At least he was bright enough to get
things done, though, and keep an even bigger lunatic from nuking North
Vietnam.

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

It’s interesting to see how Bush twists legitimate queries about his
"military service" into attacks on the National Guard. Had I been
missing from my Army unit for more than 30 days back then, I would have
been “dropped from the rolls,” and labeled a deserter, not just AWOL,
although admittedly my daddy wasn’t nearly so well connected as his.
Also, if I were facing these kinds of questions about my service, I
would provide names of others with whom I had served that could verify
my attendance. Since we in the US appear to have decided to be rulers of
the universe, let’s elect John Kerry, a real veteran and war hero, as
our commander-in-chief.

Capt. Jeff, another real veteran

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 09:53:28 -0600, Messing In Boats
wrote:

Since we in the US appear to have decided to be rulers of
the universe, let's elect John Kerry, a real veteran and war hero, as
our commander-in-chief.

Yup, an admitted baby-killer and traitor marching under the North
Vietnamese flag.

What a putz.

Would you care to back up those statements? Or, did you have a liquid lunch
today?

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Philosophy, Not Policy
Why Bush isn't good at interviews.

Sunday, February 8, 2004 4:30 p.m. EST
President Bush's interview on "Meet the Press" seems to me so much a
big-story-in-the-making that I wanted to weigh in with some thoughts. I
am
one of those who feel his performance was not impressive.


An interesting piece indeed, but wrong. Bush is an idiot, and that's
what came across in Russert's interview.

The Iraq stuff will be played over and again. Here's the part I found
most telling:

"RUSSERT: The General Accounting Office, which are the nation's
auditors...

BUSH: Yes.

RUSSERT: ... have done a study of our finances. And this is what your
legacy will be to the next generation.

It says that our current fiscal policy is unsustainable. They did a
computer simulation that shows that balancing the budget in 2040 could
require either cutting total federal spending in half or doubling
federal taxes.

Why, as a fiscal conservative, as you like to call yourself, would you
allow a $500 billion deficit and this kind of deficit disaster?

BUSH: Sure. The budget I just proposed to the Congress cuts the deficit
in half in five years.

Now, I don't know what the assumptions are in the GAO report, but I do
know that if Congress is wise with the people's money, we can cut the
deficit in half. And at that point in time, as a percentage of GDP, the
deficit will be relatively low. "


Did you get that?

"I don't know what the assumptions are in the GAO report..."

Any CEO who admitted he didn't know what assumptions his company's
auditors were using in analyizing the company's financials would be
fired on the spot by the Board of Directors.


GAO numbers are only used by the opposition party. In fact, I know of no
President who has ever proposed a budget in which the assumptions are the
same as those used by the GAO...so it isn't surprising that a President
would not pay attention to the GAO's assumptions.

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

Must have been in the cut and paste.


"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message news:h8FVb.90243

Doc.... did you attach a .gif to your post above?

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...


GAO numbers are only used by the opposition party. In fact, I know of no
President who has ever proposed a budget in which the assumptions are the
same as those used by the GAO...so it isn't surprising that a President
would not pay attention to the GAO's assumptions.

If the president's assumptions disagreed with the GAO's by a little, I could
agree with you. But, Bush's are WAY the hell out of whack. They're
completely disconnected from reality. If your wife handled money like Bush,
you'd have her head examined.

There are conservative forces in this country which are saying that Bush has
gone off the deep end, in terms of finances. I assume you're aware of this.

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

Doug Kanter wrote in message
...
"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 09:53:28 -0600, Messing In Boats
wrote:

Since we in the US appear to have decided to be rulers of
the universe, let's elect John Kerry, a real veteran and war hero, as
our commander-in-chief.

Yup, an admitted baby-killer and traitor marching under the North
Vietnamese flag.

What a putz.

Would you care to back up those statements? Or, did you have a liquid
lunch
today?

Probably more like a 'powdered one'!

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

If the president's assumptions disagreed with the GAO's by a little, I could
agree with you. But, Bush's are WAY the hell out of whack. They're
completely disconnected from reality. If your wife handled money like Bush,
you'd have her head examined.

It's like the old saying, if one man says he sees a dog and the other says he
sees a cat, they can discuss what kind of animal it really is. If one man sees a
dog and the other man sees a jar of pickles, they have nothing to talk about.



There are conservative forces in this country which are saying that Bush has
gone off the deep end, in terms of finances.

He hasn't "gone" off the deep end. He was always off the deep end.

The smartest thing the Democrats can do is not be negative, just give President
Bush the spotlight and let him ramble. Remember the courtroom scene in 'The
Caine Mutiny'?

DSK

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

If the president's assumptions disagreed with the GAO's by a little, I
could
agree with you. But, Bush's are WAY the hell out of whack. They're
completely disconnected from reality. If your wife handled money like
Bush,
you'd have her head examined.

It's like the old saying, if one man says he sees a dog and the other says
he
sees a cat, they can discuss what kind of animal it really is. If one man
sees a
dog and the other man sees a jar of pickles, they have nothing to talk
about.



There are conservative forces in this country which are saying that Bush
has
gone off the deep end, in terms of finances.

He hasn't "gone" off the deep end. He was always off the deep end.

The smartest thing the Democrats can do is not be negative, just give
President
Bush the spotlight and let him ramble. Remember the courtroom scene in
'The
Caine Mutiny'?

:-) :-)

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

Messing In Boats wrote in message ...
It’s interesting to see how Bush twists legitimate queries about his
"military service" into attacks on the National Guard. Had I been
missing from my Army unit for more than 30 days back then, I would have
been “dropped from the rolls,” and labeled a deserter, not just AWOL,
although admittedly my daddy wasn’t nearly so well connected as his.
Also, if I were facing these kinds of questions about my service, I
would provide names of others with whom I had served that could verify
my attendance. Since we in the US appear to have decided to be rulers of
the universe, let’s elect John Kerry, a real veteran and war hero, as
our commander-in-chief.

Capt. Jeff, another real veteran

Couldn't agree more!

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 05:45:49 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Philosophy, Not Policy
Why Bush isn't good at interviews.

Sunday, February 8, 2004 4:30 p.m. EST
President Bush's interview on "Meet the Press" seems to me so much a
big-story-in-the-making that I wanted to weigh in with some thoughts. I am
one of those who feel his performance was not impressive.

Snipped

If I worked for President Bush I'd say spend the next nine months giving
speeches, and limit interviews. If I worked for Mr. Kerry I'd say give a lot
of interviews, be out there all the time, and don't try to wrap your points
up in a coherent philosophy, which is something a good speech demands.
Anyway, that's how I see it. Am I wrong? By the way, I've never been able to
stick to a talking point in a TV interview in my life.


Gotta admit, I agree with what this guy said, especially his first and
last paragraphs.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

"NOYB" wrote in message news:ypQVb.19636

Must have been in the cut and paste.

Just wondering if it was somehow virus or worm generated, somewhere along
the line.

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 05:45:49 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Philosophy, Not Policy
Why Bush isn't good at interviews.

Sunday, February 8, 2004 4:30 p.m. EST
President Bush's interview on "Meet the Press" seems to me so much a
big-story-in-the-making that I wanted to weigh in with some thoughts. I
am
one of those who feel his performance was not impressive.

Snipped

If I worked for President Bush I'd say spend the next nine months giving
speeches, and limit interviews. If I worked for Mr. Kerry I'd say give a
lot
of interviews, be out there all the time, and don't try to wrap your
points
up in a coherent philosophy, which is something a good speech demands.
Anyway, that's how I see it. Am I wrong? By the way, I've never been able
to
stick to a talking point in a TV interview in my life.


Gotta admit, I agree with what this guy said, especially his first and
last paragraphs.

It's a gal, not a guy. Peggy Noonan.

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
WaIIy wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 09:53:28 -0600, Messing In Boats
wrote:

Since we in the US appear to have decided to be rulers of
the universe, let’s elect John Kerry, a real veteran and war hero, as
our commander-in-chief.

Yup, an admitted baby-killer and traitor marching under the North
Vietnamese flag.

What a putz.

So, Wally, just how many times have you fallen off the roof onto your
head? You're damned close to permanently retiring the trophy as the
dumbest foch ever to post in this newsgroup. Tuuk is still in the
competition, though.

You obviously don't read basskisser's posts. Shelikoff and he had a "you're
an idiot...no you are" post going for about 3 months. I know Steve wasn't
the idiot, either.

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
WaIIy wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 09:53:28 -0600, Messing In Boats
wrote:

Since we in the US appear to have decided to be rulers of
the universe, let’s elect John Kerry, a real veteran and war hero, as
our commander-in-chief.

Yup, an admitted baby-killer and traitor marching under the North
Vietnamese flag.

What a putz.

So, Wally, just how many times have you fallen off the roof onto your
head? You're damned close to permanently retiring the trophy as the
dumbest foch ever to post in this newsgroup. Tuuk is still in the
competition, though.

You obviously don't read basskisser's posts. Shelikoff and he had a "you're
an idiot...no you are" post going for about 3 months. I know Steve wasn't
the idiot, either.


It matters not...the dumbest poster here is Wally...unless it is Tuuk.

--
Email sent to is never read.

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

NOYB wrote:

You obviously don't read basskisser's posts. Shelikoff and he had a "you're
an idiot...no you are" post going for about 3 months. I know Steve wasn't
the idiot, either.

B'asskisser needs to be given a pass, for it is painfully obvious this
guy is not running on all cylinders.

-- Charlie


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

"Charles" wrote in message
...


NOYB wrote:

You obviously don't read basskisser's posts. Shelikoff and he had a
"you're
an idiot...no you are" post going for about 3 months. I know Steve
wasn't
the idiot, either.

B'asskisser needs to be given a pass, for it is painfully obvious this
guy is not running on all cylinders.

Oh, he's on all cylinders all right...a cylinder of nitrous, a cylinder of
isoflurane, and a cylinder of halothane. That'd explain the brain dead
posts.

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

Charles wrote in message ...
NOYB wrote:

You obviously don't read basskisser's posts. Shelikoff and he had a "you're
an idiot...no you are" post going for about 3 months. I know Steve wasn't
the idiot, either.

B'asskisser needs to be given a pass, for it is painfully obvious this
guy is not running on all cylinders.

-- Charlie

speaking of "running on all cylinders", I notice you have NOTHING of
any substance to interject into the post, huh? Kettle, black?

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

"NOYB" wrote in message news:xzVVb.20032
You obviously don't read basskisser's posts. Shelikoff and he had a "you're
an idiot...no you are" post going for about 3 months. I know Steve wasn't
the idiot, either.

Please provide some evidence of how "(you) know Steve wasn't the
idiot, either." Do you have some evidence of his I.Q., mental
capacity, or training in any of the particular fields that we've had
diatribes about, or are you, as usual, writing with no regard to fact?

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

John H wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 05:45:49 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Philosophy, Not Policy
Why Bush isn't good at interviews.

Sunday, February 8, 2004 4:30 p.m. EST
President Bush's interview on "Meet the Press" seems to me so much a
big-story-in-the-making that I wanted to weigh in with some thoughts. I am
one of those who feel his performance was not impressive.

Snipped

If I worked for President Bush I'd say spend the next nine months giving
speeches, and limit interviews. If I worked for Mr. Kerry I'd say give a lot
of interviews, be out there all the time, and don't try to wrap your points
up in a coherent philosophy, which is something a good speech demands.
Anyway, that's how I see it. Am I wrong? By the way, I've never been able to
stick to a talking point in a TV interview in my life.


Gotta admit, I agree with what this guy said, especially his first and
last paragraphs.

John H


First, it was a woman. Second, it's typical how you conservatives snip
what you want, and trash the rest. Typical right spin.

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

basskisser wrote:


speaking of "running on all cylinders", I notice you have NOTHING of
any substance to interject into the post, huh? Kettle, black?

Yup. Pot too.

So you are finally admitting you have nothing of substance; that's
interesting. I think many of us concluded that a long time ago.

-- Charlie


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:29:07 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"WaIIy" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 09:53:28 -0600, Messing In Boats
wrote:

Since we in the US appear to have decided to be rulers of
the universe, let's elect John Kerry, a real veteran and war hero, as
our commander-in-chief.

Yup, an admitted baby-killer and traitor marching under the North
Vietnamese flag.

What a putz.

Would you care to back up those statements? Or, did you have a liquid
lunch
today?


http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.org/

Interesting read.

While in command of Swift Boat 44, Kerry and crew operated without
prudence in a Free Fire Zone, carelessly firing at targets of
opportunity racking up a number of enemy kills and some civilians. His
body count included-- a woman, her baby, a 12 year-old boy, an elderly
man and several South Vietnamese soldiers.

"It is one of those terrible things, and I'll never forget, ever, the
sight of that child," Kerry later said about the dead baby. "But there
was nothing that anybody could have done about it. It was the only
instance of that happening."

Kerry said he was appalled that the Navy's ''free fire zone'' policy in
Vietnam put civilians at such high risk.

And this makes him a traitor marching under the NV flag.....how??? Be
careful with your answer. You're already in over your head.

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

On 10 Feb 2004 03:13:58 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message news:xzVVb.20032
You obviously don't read basskisser's posts. Shelikoff and he had a "you're
an idiot...no you are" post going for about 3 months. I know Steve wasn't
the idiot, either.

Please provide some evidence of how "(you) know Steve wasn't the
idiot, either." Do you have some evidence of his I.Q., mental
capacity, or training in any of the particular fields that we've had
diatribes about, or are you, as usual, writing with no regard to fact?

Just go back and read some of your posts, bk, no further evidence is
needed.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message news:xzVVb.20032
You obviously don't read basskisser's posts. Shelikoff and he had a
"you're
an idiot...no you are" post going for about 3 months. I know Steve
wasn't
the idiot, either.

Please provide some evidence of how "(you) know Steve wasn't the
idiot, either." Do you have some evidence of his I.Q., mental
capacity, or training in any of the particular fields that we've had
diatribes about, or are you, as usual, writing with no regard to fact?

I've read Steve's posts and I've read your posts. Steve's not the idiot.

OT--An interesting piece on Bush
 

"NOYB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message news:xzVVb.20032
You obviously don't read basskisser's posts. Shelikoff and he had a
"you're
an idiot...no you are" post going for about 3 months. I know Steve
wasn't
the idiot, either.

Please provide some evidence of how "(you) know Steve wasn't the
idiot, either." Do you have some evidence of his I.Q., mental
capacity, or training in any of the particular fields that we've had
diatribes about, or are you, as usual, writing with no regard to fact?

I've read Steve's posts and I've read your posts. Steve's not the idiot.

No, you are. Read what to hell I said, which was: Please provide some
evidence of how "(you) KNOW Steve wasn't the idiot, either" Can you?
I'm not asking for wild speculation. You claimed you KNEW, so, show
the proof.