It took Bush 2 hours (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 01, 2024, 04:56:36 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
  It took Bush 2 hours (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: It took Bush 2 hours  (Read 3062 times)
Blue Rectangle
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,683


Political Matrix
E: 8.50, S: -0.62

« on: July 07, 2004, 02:43:41 PM »

Alfie, shame on you!  Didn't you get the memo? You guys aren't supposed to play the "chicken hawk" card now that Edwards got the nod.
Edwards didn't serve in Vietnam because he had a student deferment.  That's right, just like Dick Cheney and Tom Delay.  But that didn't stop him from being a supporter of Bush's war in Iraq.  Refresh my memory, Alfie, what do we call people who chose to avoid service in Vietnam and went on to be hawkish politicians?  You had some incredibly clever name for them, what was it again?
Logged
Blue Rectangle
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,683


Political Matrix
E: 8.50, S: -0.62

« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2004, 08:44:43 PM »

Criteria for Chicken Hawkdom  Sorry -- you lose again.  See criteria #3.


- Alfie

What is criterion #3?  Let me guess, "The above criteria shall not be construed as to apply to any Democrat"?
Oh, here it is:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
So if we limit this criterion to apply only to the Iraq war, and if we only consider statements Edwards has made in the last six months while campaigning for president, then maybe he does fail the test.

However, Edwards did not just vote for the resolution authorizing the Iraq war, he cosponsored it.  In fact, Edwards pushed for war before Bush even went to Congress to get the resolution.
From an Edwards press release:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Edwards was so pro-war that he tried to one-up Bush by declaring that he drove the country to a showdown with Saddam before Bush did!

Then there is the case of Edwards' record during the Clinton years.
From an Edwards press release dated 3 May 1999:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Sounds to me like Edwards felt that war was the preferred solution here, too.  I don't recall him asking Clinton to find a diplomatic solution in the Balkans before the bombing started.
From the same release:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
So is your defense of Edwards that he didn’t say the troops were doing a “glorious” job, just a “fine” one?

Face it, the average North Carolinian (or average American, for that matter) doesn’t share your views on war.  John Edwards pushed for war because he thought it would win him votes.  John Edwards glorified the Kosovo war, portraying it as a good vs. evil issue, to win votes.  Now Edwards has adopted a six month-old skepticism of war in hopes of winning votes.

Sorry, looks like your anti-Cheney venom has come back to haunt you.
Logged
Blue Rectangle
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,683


Political Matrix
E: 8.50, S: -0.62

« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2004, 12:09:29 PM »

Edwards didn't get drafted because he didn't turn 18 until 1971.
The draft continued until 1973, so yes, Edwards was eligible.

Please understand that I don't blame Edwards for not pursuing a military career and I also don't buy into the notion that choosing not to serve automatically disqualifies a politician from being able to advocate military operations.  I think Kosovo was a bad decision and poorly managed, but I have better reasons for that view than "Clinton was a draft-dodger."  That's simply not relevant in my book.
Logged
Blue Rectangle
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,683


Political Matrix
E: 8.50, S: -0.62

« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2004, 12:23:13 PM »

Surely it looks as if you cut and paste.  Cites, please?  I'll take it from there.

- Alfie

Ah, your favorite defense when faced with facts: "Cites?"  And if I post links to anything vaguely conservative, you'll attack the facts as part of some right-wing conspiracy.  I was ready for this.  I didn't go to some Republican talking points site, I went to edwards.senate.gov and searched his press release database.

Edwards represents North Carolina, home to Camp LeJeune and Pope Air Force Base.  You can't get elected senator in NC without a vigorous support of the military.  Edwards is not a dove--he embraces the label "hawk".  He fits criterion 3.
Logged
Blue Rectangle
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,683


Political Matrix
E: 8.50, S: -0.62

« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2004, 10:29:22 AM »

Alfie, I asked you to take a look at Edwards and to decide if you could defend him.  You promised to either accept labeling Edwards a chickenhawk, or to offer a well-reasoned argument of why his situation is different from Cheney’s.  Instead, you chose to trot out the same old anti-Republican polemic, blind to the faults of those you support.  You can deny the label of hypocrite, but you are only lying to yourself.  90% of the Dems on this board have well-thought-out positions, logical defenses, and fair criticisms of Republicans.  You have nothing but blind rage.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a pact to sign…
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 16 queries.