[Lerkfish]

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRe...d=167-08122004

Statement from Ten Senior Military Officials in Response to Vice President Cheney's Latest Round of Personal Attacks


8/12/2004 6:32:00 PM


To: National Desk


Contact: Mark Kitchens of Kerry-Edwards 2004, 202-464-2800


WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Ten senior military officials released the following statement today in response to the Vice President's attacks on John Kerry today:


"We are deeply disappointed by the tone and tenor of President Bush and Vice President Cheney's personal attacks on John Kerry, a decorated combat veteran who served his country with courage and honor. John Kerry is talking about his plan to address the most pressing issues facing our nation -- jobs, the economy, health care, the war on terror, the war in Iraq. George Bush and Dick Cheney have chosen take their campaign to the gutter. We call on President Bush and Vice President Cheney to stop the irresponsible personal attacks and tell us where they want to take the country. Tell us how they plan to win the peace in Iraq. Tell us how they plan to get us back on track with the war on terror. Tell us where they plan to lead the country. The American people and our troops deserve better."


Signed by:


Admiral William J. Crowe (United States Navy, Retired)


Admiral Stansfield Turner (United States Navy, Retired)


General Wesley K. Clark (United States Army, Retired)


General Merrill "Tony" A. McPeak (United States Air Force, Retired)


General Joseph Hoar (United States Marine Corps, Retired)


General Johnnie E. Wilson (United States Army, Retired)


Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn (United States Navy, Retired)


Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy (United States Army, Retired)


Lieutenant General Donald Kerrick (United States Army, Retired)


Lieutenant General Edward D. Baca

[MindFad]

His statements were pretty ridiculous. At least I wasn't the only one to notice this.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MindFad:
His statements were pretty ridiculous. At least I wasn't the only one to notice this.

yep. the smell of desperation. keep watching for that October surprise. They're flailing and they know it. Did you hear Bush's definition of "sovereignty" ?

[MindFad]

Indeed I did.

I liked his renaming of the War on Terr'r™, too.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MindFad:
Indeed I did.

I liked his renaming of the War on Terr'r™, too.

but did you see the actual video? in the soveriegnty meltdown, about halfway through he realizes he isn't saying crap, and makes this really angry hand gesture to the questioner, that seems to say "stfu".
I watched it on CSPAN, so I got to see all the nuances, the openly derisive crowd, amazed at his inability to answer simple questions without flop sweat. Then later, someone on the panel traps him unintentionally with a question about legacy vs. quotas, it put Bush in the spot of saying he was against legacy (I'm sure not what he WANTED to say, since without legacy he'd have not gotten into Yale)...later, he starts to walk off and that panel member stands up....Bush walks back to him (there's no audio), but you can see he's p!ssed as hell and says something angry at the guy ( I don't know what) but you can read the body language clearly.

Also, he's shaking hands in line and he nonchalantly asks when someone says they're from Orlando "So, how we doin in Florida?" Her chilling response "you're in trouble.".

gotta love it.

[Dr.HermanG.]

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:

I agree: Bush is asleep at the wheel. Good point!

[Zimphire]

Lerk, for some reason you never listed their political affiliation.

These are Shills for the left.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Yeah, wow. 10 military leaders criticize the President. He's DOOMED I tell ya.

They certainly changed my mind. Might as well not have an election now.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Lerk, for some reason you never listed their political affiliation.

These are Shills for the left.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

And the people that have opinions favoring the right are what?

[BRussell]

I wonder how many of them were Republicans pre-Bush.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by KarlG:
And the people that have opinions favoring the right are what?

Depends on what they are doing. Giving an opinion. OR trying to undermind an administration by setting stuff like this up making them look as if they represent more than they do.

They were being used as shills, plain and simple. Just like Kerry was after he got out of NAM.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Lerk, for some reason you never listed their political affiliation.

These are Shills for the left.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

Really? Do you know who Admiral Crowe is? Read up before knee-jerking, before you put someone's eye out.

I took a class under him at OU, and I assure you, he is no "shill of the left". Go ahead, read up. And tell me why he might be signing his name onto such a press release.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
Really? Do you know who Admiral Crowe is? Read up before knee-jerking, before you put someone's eye out.

I took a class under him at OU, and I assure you, he is no "shill of the left".

I know who he is. I remember him back in the Reagan era. What particular are you wanting me to read?

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Depends on what they are doing. Giving an opinion. OR trying to undermind an administration by setting stuff like this up making them look as if they represent more than they do.

They were being used as shills, plain and simple. Just like Kerry was after he got out of NAM.

I see, these high ranking and highly respected military personnel aren't smart enough to give their own opinions; they have to be set up as shills, according to you. Just curious, who's pulling your string.

[chris v]

I have a Great Uncle who's a retired Brigadier, and a lifelong Republican who refers to Bush as a "Goddamned idiot," and holds similar opinions about most of his administration. It's not a given that the military vote is blindly Bush's for the taking.

CV

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I know who he is. I remember him back in the Reagan era. What particular are you wanting me to read?

I just want you to read. You know, so that your responses correspond with the facts. Crowe is no shill of the left. So go ahead and tell me why he signed that.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
I just want you to read. You know, so that your responses correspond with the facts. Crowe is no shill of the left. So go ahead and tell me why he signed that.

xi, it doesn't give his political affiliation. Just because he worked in a position under Reagan doesn't mean anything.

Take Clark for example. He was a shill for the left, but tried to act like he was a righty.

Ever since he was busted. You don't hear CRAP about him.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Lerk, for some reason you never listed their political affiliation.

Not everyone has their political affiliation attached to their name.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Not everyone has their political affiliation attached to their name.

True. but in this case, I think it matters.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
xi, it doesn't give his political affiliation. Just because he worked in a position under Reagan doesn't mean anything.

Not sure if I'd agree with you there, but let's set that aside. More important than the fact that he's done work under Republican administrations - he's never been anyone's shill, on either side. The guy has always been a maverick in his career as someone who isn't afraid to speak about what he believes. I learned that about him when I attended OU, and that's one of the reasons I have had great respect for him since.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
Not sure if I'd agree with you there, but let's set that aside. More important than the fact that he's done work under Republican administrations - he's never been anyone's shill, on either side. The guy has always been a maverick in his career as someone who isn't afraid to speak about what he believes. I learned that about him when I attended OU, and that's one of the reasons I have had great respect for him since.

Clarke worked under both as well. And he was a shill.

Like I said, it means nothing.

This is just the Dems retaliation for the "Swifboat" thing.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
xi, it doesn't give his political affiliation. Just because he worked in a position under Reagan doesn't mean anything.

Take Clark for example. He was a shill for the left, but tried to act like he was a righty.

Ever since he was busted. You don't hear CRAP about him.

Clark was a shill for the left? I don't think you qualify as a "shill" when you run for the presidential nomination. He also was a Republican in the past, and that was something that was brought up against him during the primaries.

I believe at least a few of those others have said they were Republicans up until the last few years.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
I learned that about him when I attended OU, and that's one of the reasons I have had great respect for him since.

Which "OU" are you talking about?

[Zimphire]

Sorry, I meant "Clarke"

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Clarke worked under both as well. And he was a shill.

Like I said, it means nothing.

This is just the Dems retaliation for the "Swifboat" thing.

I purposely did not mention any of the other individuals, simply because I don't know much or anything about them, including Clarke. My post was about Crowe.

Whether it means something is up to each person to decide, but I think I'm not the only one who chuckles at standard responses such as your initial post.

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
gotta love it.

Yeah, could you score me whatever you're on? How's that collar bone by the way? Must be painful typing all this being bed ridden.

[Wiskedjak]

I think a "shill" is a Republican who doesn't like Bush (such is possible)

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Yeah, could you score me whatever you're on? How's that collar bone by the way? Must be painful typing all this being bed ridden.

Are you going to start with the personal attacks, or are you going to say something constructive?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I think a "shill" is a Republican who doesn't like Bush (such is possible)

: a decoy who acts as an enthusiastic customer in order to stimulate the participation of others v : act as a shill

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
: a decoy who acts as an enthusiastic customer in order to stimulate the participation of others v : act as a shill

Clarke, O'Neill, DiIulio et al certainly aren't Democratic shills, by that definition. Last I checked, they denounced the Bush administration, they didn't endorse their adversaries.

Same goes for the signers of the letter, that guy who said Kerry was qualified to be C&C wasn't endorsing him, ex Senator Chic Hecht who owes Kerry his life but still raises money for Bush, and John McCain.

About the only people who might fit the shill bill, according to the definition you posted, are Kerry's ex rivals for the dem nomination or his comrades from Nam.

Hell, you could probably even get away with accusing the people in Moveon.org's latest ad campaign of being shills.

BlackGriffen

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
... the openly derisive crowd,...

That's funny you pointed that out. I saw that clip and thought the same thing about the crowd. They were rumbling as he lost his train of thought. It was so different from the normal campaign shots you usually see with the overly supportive shills in the audience.

I remember thinking how odd it was but I just filed it away until I read your post. I don't think it necessarily portends a bad November for Bush, it was just odd to see.

That is all.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Clarke, O'Neill, DiIulio et al certainly aren't Democratic shills, by that definition. Last I checked, they denounced the Bush administration, they didn't endorse their adversaries.

By denouncing the Bush administration they ARE endorsing their adversaries. Clarke even tried to play off like he was a Republican fer goodness sakes. He got busted. That is why we no longer hear about his jibber jabber. His credibility was lost. His shilliness was obvious.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
That's funny you pointed that out. I saw that clip and thought the same thing about the crowd. They were rumbling as he lost his train of thought. It was so different from the normal campaign shots you usually see with the overly supportive shills in the audience.

I remember thinking how odd it was but I just filed it away until I read your post. I don't think it necessarily portends a bad November for Bush, it was just odd to see.

That is all.

well, I think that's why the republican practice of stocking audiences with fawning sycophants has actually done Bush a bad turn. He's become too used to it. That's why the flopsweat when he realized he suddenly didn't own the whole room, that they didn't think everything that fell from his mouth was diamonds.

I think the strategies of requiring a fealty oath to be signed before attending republican rallies is backfiring on them badly, and that's one reason why -- if your president only gets easy lob questions that are submitted in writing beforehand, he gets rusty on being able to think on his feet. Not that Bush ever was good at thinking on his feet, but he's become markedly worse at it.

[Zimphire]

Lerk, you know that Bush isn't the only pres that had questions submitted beforehand right?

You might want to check the past decade or two before you really start badmouthing that.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Lerk, you know that Bush isn't the only pres that had questions submitted beforehand right?

Obviously. He stands out because he can't answer them in a coherent manner, pre-submitted questions or not. Duh.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
Obviously. He stands out because he can't answer them in a coherent manner, pre-submitted questions or not. Duh.

Correct.

also, this administration, as far as I know, is the only one ever to demand people sign an oath to vote for him before allowing them into a rally.

The fact is, they are CONTROLLING his public appearances to the point where Bush does not really have to do much beyond memorize the current "talking points". It becomes obvious when in the same session, he'll repeat certain key phrases up to 25 times (as was shown on a very apt Daily Show segment).

Bush is doing the Cliff Notes Presidency, at a time when can ill afford incompetence.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
Obviously. He stands out because he can't answer them in a coherent manner, pre-submitted questions or not. Duh.

Oh please, Clinton used to stumble all over himself with double speak. Does anyone remember "Depends on what your definition of "is is"

If you are going to be petty, at least be consistent.

BTW, love the new sig.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Oh please, Clinton used to stumble all over himself with double speak. Does anyone remember "Depends on what your definition of "is is"

If you are going to be petty, at least be consistent.

BTW, love the new sig.

Thanks.

Democrat or Republican, it's just painful to listen to someone struggle like that.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Correct.

also, this administration, as far as I know, is the only one ever to demand people sign an oath to vote for him before allowing them into a rally.

The fact is, they are CONTROLLING his public appearances to the point where Bush does not really have to do much beyond memorize the current "talking points". It becomes obvious when in the same session, he'll repeat certain key phrases up to 25 times (as was shown on a very apt Daily Show segment).

Bush is doing the Cliff Notes Presidency, at a time when can ill afford incompetence.

Tell me Lerk was Clinton doing the Cliff Notes Presidency when he also knew the questions beforehand?

[Lerkfish]

actually, Clinton was smart enough to think on his feet and speak apart from the speeches written for him.

a contrast.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Not that Bush ever was good at thinking on his feet, but he's become markedly worse at it.

That's what happens when you spend half your life practising drinking yourself OFF your feet.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
actually, Clinton was smart enough to think on his feet and speak apart from the speeches written for him.

a contrast.

Too bad a lot of what he said while he was on his feet was gibberish and double speak Lerk.

Clinton was great a speaking pre-made speeches. He is better than Bush at that. But when it came to his own words, he was just as bad as Bush.

[djohnson]

Who here can stand in front on an entire nation and create a speech from scratch?

[pman68]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
yep. the smell of desperation. keep watching for that October surprise. They're flailing and they know it. Did you hear Bush's definition of "sovereignty" ?

That is just AMAZING. He went to Yale and Harvard? How? Oh yeah, daddy's money. Even George H. was more articulate than this guy. Oh wait, the prez doesn't need to be articulate. K.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Who here can stand in front on an entire nation and create a speech from scratch?

[pman68]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Who here can stand in front on an entire nation and create a speech from scratch?

The President of the United States should be able to do that. We are not asking for an entire speech or address to Congress, just answering bloody questions in complete sentences. Is that really to much to ask from the leader of the free world?

[Troll]

Actually, I've been to a party that Bill Clinton attended. The guy does exude charisma. He could say pretty much anything and all of the women and 80% of the men in the room would be convinced. I think there's a little voice in the back of your head saying, "This guy is too smooth," but he grabs your attention. He has a presence when he walks into a room that's undeniable.

Of course, shortly after Clinton entered the room, Nelson Mandela walked in and Clinton just paled in comparison. There's someone that commands a room. He has Clinton's charisma in spades but without that coy, boyish face, Mandela commands respect and trust. You don't doubt for a moment that the guy has all the answers.

Never been around Bush. I thought in the beginning that he had some of that Clinton boyish charm. He sort of put himself forward as a down-to-earth joking kind of guy. He ruins that when he opens his mouth though. He has none of the wit that Clinton has and his frequent incoherence makes you doubt his intelligence and abilities.

[Zimphire]

I've heard Bush be plenty witty. As I have heard Clinton be as well.

Heck, I even heard CARTER being witty before.

You hear what you want to.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Who here can stand in front on an entire nation and create a speech from scratch?

sure, not everyone can do that. But certainly someone who wants the job should be able to do the job....right? If you're an actor but can't remember the lines, how long are you employed? If you're a doctor, but can't distinguish the pancreas from the liver, how long are you employed? If you're a singer, but can't carry a tune, how long are you employed?

The job of president involves diplomacy, being an orator, making decisions on behalf of the constituency, among other things....If the guy frankly sucks at speaking in public, which even most of the Bush apologists even admit is true, then he is underqualified for the job, period.