You pose the question as if Mr. Kerry had a choice in the matter, which of
course he did not.

Excuse me? Of course he had a choice.... the choice of running away and
leaving his crewman is not a what we'd think of as a good call, but
other commanders on the battlefield have done it (or the equivalent). In
fact, every single day there is a driver of an automobile that makes the
same choice... you may be familiar with the term "hit & run."


... He did his duty, as was expected of him, and no one can
ever take that away.

Ironic, since you are indeed trying to.


The more salient points are twofold, however, if you want to compare Mr.
Kerry to Pres. Bush on that basis. The first is that no comparison is
possible. Nothing in Mr. Kerry's life up to that point could indicate that
he would have reacted with courage under fire. Combat veterans will tell
you that there *are* no valid indicators. More interestingly, nothing in
his life *since* that time has indicated the likelihood of such a reaction,
either. In point of fact, you could make a case for the opposite. The only
facts extant are that Mr. Kerry and Pres. Bush were not in circumstances
that allow comparison.

Wait a minute here.... you're saying that Kerry, because he *has*
reacted bravely under fire, can't be relied on to do so? And Bush,
because he *has* run away when danger threatened, can't be compared?

You have a rather odd sense of logic.


The second point is that even the attempt to construct such a comparison is
invalid, rendered so by policy and action of the Democrat National Committee
and the respective campaign committees of Mr. Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

That makes perfect sense... NOT!

"Because it's from a Democrat, it is automatically suspicious.... and
because of CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON"




I don’t know what George
Bush would have done if he had been skipper that day, but I do know that
on September 11 when he was commander in chief and this nation was under
attack, he was nowhere to be
found.


As to this last offering, it is strictly sixth grade stuff, and betrays a
quaint disingenuousness as to how the Executive Branch, the National
Security Council and Advisor, and the Secret Service interact. My
presumption is that you know better, since you appear literate.

It's not 'disingenuous' at all. It's the truth. Bush reacted badly on
Sept 11th. At first, he didn't react at all. He continued reading to
schoolkids. Then he ran in panic.

Basically, he did what he was told by his handlers, who were in some
disagreement. Is this "leadership"? Not by my definition.

You need to make yourself a short list of facts, and see if you can
actually make some sense of it all. And keep reminding yourself, that
not all Republican campaign propaganda is gospel truth, and Clinton has
been out of office for over three years now.

DSK

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 08:38:33 -0500, DSK wrote:

You pose the question as if Mr. Kerry had a choice in the matter, which of
course he did not.

Excuse me? Of course he had a choice.... the choice of running away and
leaving his crewman is not a what we'd think of as a good call, but
other commanders on the battlefield have done it (or the equivalent). In
fact, every single day there is a driver of an automobile that makes the
same choice... you may be familiar with the term "hit & run."


... He did his duty, as was expected of him, and no one can
ever take that away.

Ironic, since you are indeed trying to.


The more salient points are twofold, however, if you want to compare Mr.
Kerry to Pres. Bush on that basis. The first is that no comparison is
possible. Nothing in Mr. Kerry's life up to that point could indicate that
he would have reacted with courage under fire. Combat veterans will tell
you that there *are* no valid indicators. More interestingly, nothing in
his life *since* that time has indicated the likelihood of such a reaction,
either. In point of fact, you could make a case for the opposite. The only
facts extant are that Mr. Kerry and Pres. Bush were not in circumstances
that allow comparison.

Wait a minute here.... you're saying that Kerry, because he *has*
reacted bravely under fire, can't be relied on to do so? And Bush,
because he *has* run away when danger threatened, can't be compared?

You have a rather odd sense of logic.


The second point is that even the attempt to construct such a comparison is
invalid, rendered so by policy and action of the Democrat National Committee
and the respective campaign committees of Mr. Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

That makes perfect sense... NOT!

"Because it's from a Democrat, it is automatically suspicious.... and
because of CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON"




I don’t know what George
Bush would have done if he had been skipper that day, but I do know that
on September 11 when he was commander in chief and this nation was under
attack, he was nowhere to be
found.


As to this last offering, it is strictly sixth grade stuff, and betrays a
quaint disingenuousness as to how the Executive Branch, the National
Security Council and Advisor, and the Secret Service interact. My
presumption is that you know better, since you appear literate.

It's not 'disingenuous' at all. It's the truth. Bush reacted badly on
Sept 11th. At first, he didn't react at all. He continued reading to
schoolkids. Then he ran in panic.

Basically, he did what he was told by his handlers, who were in some
disagreement. Is this "leadership"? Not by my definition.

You need to make yourself a short list of facts, and see if you can
actually make some sense of it all. And keep reminding yourself, that
not all Republican campaign propaganda is gospel truth, and Clinton has
been out of office for over three years now.

DSK


Wow. "Ran in panic." Now that's a line the DNC hasn't even started
using yet. You're not going off the deep end here, are you?

John H

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

John H wrote:
Wow. "Ran in panic." Now that's a line the DNC hasn't even started
using yet. You're not going off the deep end here, are you?

Not really. What do *you* call it when a person leaves one place at high
speed, in secrecy, avoiding making contacts that he might normally be
expected to, does not allow any public announcement about his
whereabouts, and claims that there is a plot to kill him, when in fact
thousands of other people are suffering death and hardship (and he does
nothing to help them)?

Oh wait, you already answered that.... *you* call it "showing leadership."

DSK

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 15:59:33 -0500, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
Wow. "Ran in panic." Now that's a line the DNC hasn't even started
using yet. You're not going off the deep end here, are you?

Not really. What do *you* call it when a person leaves one place at high
speed, in secrecy, avoiding making contacts that he might normally be
expected to, does not allow any public announcement about his
whereabouts, and claims that there is a plot to kill him, when in fact
thousands of other people are suffering death and hardship (and he does
nothing to help them)?

Oh wait, you already answered that.... *you* call it "showing leadership."

DSK

His job.

John H

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

John H wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 15:59:33 -0500, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
Wow. "Ran in panic." Now that's a line the DNC hasn't even started
using yet. You're not going off the deep end here, are you?

Not really. What do *you* call it when a person leaves one place at high
speed, in secrecy, avoiding making contacts that he might normally be
expected to, does not allow any public announcement about his
whereabouts, and claims that there is a plot to kill him, when in fact
thousands of other people are suffering death and hardship (and he does
nothing to help them)?

Oh wait, you already answered that.... *you* call it "showing leadership."

DSK

His job.

John H

It's Bush's job to run like a chicken?

We shall henceforth have to refer to you as "Stretch".