New Book: Kerry ‘Unfit for Command’

The economy is not "in the dumps", unemployment is not high, and poverty is not unusual coming out of a recession.From Census stats:
U.S. Census Bureau: Page not foundI see nothing wrong with free speech and the SBV ads. I have heard these guys interviewed, and they seem pretty convincing in their accounts and their strong feelings. They also dispell some of the attempted distortions of their accounts in Kerry attempts to discredit them (i.e. Kerry campaign lies). Attacking SBV is the Democrats' attempt to take attention away from the facts of what Kerry did and said.

You've got to be kidding. "Firm" and "effective"? That's spin.Dick Cheney made a very good point about Kerry: He has NOT been experienced in true leadership position of any magnitude, and that may account for his flip-flopping. He did not run a business nor hold an office in a command position. Bush at least ran a business for awhile. In the Senate, Kerry was not in a position to actually make a decision. He just voted on things (and did not attend as many sessions as he should, nor be effective at convincing others to pass his legislative proposals).To me, there is more risk of terrorism here and abroad with Kerry in the Whitehouse, because there is more chance that the terrorists can get away with something. I also see Iran, China and North Korea willing to take more risks of weapons development and aggression towards their weak neighbors.

I think McCain is carefully constructing his words for his own ambitions, but I do think he is genuinely expressing his honest opinion that Bush is the better leader AT THIS ELECTION than Kerry.McCain sees the 2008 election shaping up as Ms. Clinton versus whoever can beat her. He may be thinking that 2008 is his best and last shot at the White House. The Republicans may even step back a bit on anti-abortion stances just to keep a more liberal person out of the White House.McCain is pandering to both sides. I don't really think he respects Kerry for his anti-Vietnam actions and words, but he knows he needs Democrat voters in 2008, since he may lose some ProLife voters.

You are so spinning!!!!He HAS demonstrated ability to successfully lead others.
Bush formed a partnership and then managed the Texas Rangers.
Bush was a Governor for 6 yrs.
His oil exploration business hit the skids along with many many others during the low oil cost period when exploration in the USA was practically dead. Even today, oil industry companies are bought and sold frequently. It's a risky business. Note that Bush was still appointed director positions in the takeovers.
And, of course, he was elected President and has 4 yrs experience handling a crisis well. He has more support now than he did when he was originally elected.The RNC has NOT been mostly about Kerry! You hear what you want to hear, obviously.Look, I am not a big Bush supporter, because he is more liberal than I would like in some areas, and less liberal in some other areas (like science research). But, I much prefer him over Kerry, for much the same reasons that Zell Miller stated.

SBV's say they would not have brought this up if Kerry was not running for President, because it did not matter so much anymore to them. Some did not know what the Naval record said, either. They wrote him off as a traitorous non-team player, but the war was over, and they could put that behind them.... they thought.The Naval record is what those in power wanted it to say. I have heard from the generals of the time that Purple Hearts were more freely given out during the Vietnam war, to try to bolster the moral in the face of growing doubt of worthiness.These SBV's are passionate about the deception of Kerry and his anti-Military actions, predominantly the ones they witnessed.Usually, the military folks band together and overlook political differences. Witness McCain and the lack of incidents like this for any other candidate. However, the fact that these Republican and Democratic SBVs are going to extra effort to make their point. It's not just some interviewer who looked them up and asked a question.

You are forming your own opinion of what a leader should do in that situation. Other leaders disagree with your interpretation. So, the case is not crystal clear that he acted as a poor leader. What is clear is that his leadership on fighting terrorism is what a lot of us are looking for.Regarding the incident you cite, the chain of command depends upon information from subordinates. The country is generally prepared for anticipated attack events, and not dependent upon the President's command to respond. This was an unanticipated event, like Pearl Harbor. In the case of Pearl Harbor, it was clear who the attacker was. It was not clear for World Trade Center. Bush needed more information, just as any commander on a battlefield would need before making an unplanned decision.The fact is, there is nothing the President could have done at that time more than what he did. It's not like he could have stopped the planes. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy.

Voting is a very minor decision compared to actually making things happen.Luckily, Kerry's voting decisions on military issues were not the final decisions, as Zell Miller pointed out.Since you brought it up, voting is not one of Kerry strengths. It seems he was absent quite often. Seems like that is not good leadership, if voting is your criteria.

Just like a liberal... shift the argument to avoid the issue.The energy policy records (I thought this was discussed in length before on this forum) like other private consultations in the past between administrations, is not frequently revealed for public consumption.It's a no-win situation for Cheney for liberal critics, since if those who know about energy were consulted, the conspiracy theorists would shout about helping friends, and if those companies were not consulted, then the critics would shout that the experts were not consulted.The consultation is a distraction. What makes a difference are the decisions! That's what really counts.You liberals are so into the "intent" business, that you infer things assuming the worst, because of your prejudices.

The Navy is challenging the authenticity of Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam War medals. It seems Judicial Watch has asked Kerry to remove some of his questionable claims from his Web site, pending a formal investigation by the Navy.

You liberals are lying about this claim that Bush lied.
Bush did not lie.
He told the truth as he was informed.
Lying would be knowing the truth but saying otherwise.Also, you don't know that he has stopped looking for Osama. People thought the same thing about Saddam. I don't for a minute think he has stopped looking. I do believe he is downplaying Osama to flush him out of the caves, however. This is another instance of reading what you interpret his intent to be, and as a liberal, you find the worst intent to latch onto. Obviously, you are ignoring the facts that repeatedly reject this old mantra from the left. This "deny the facts on old arguments" is a just like Creationists. How ironic for EvC Forum. If you want those facts, go replay McCain, Guiliani, O'Reilly and go look things up on the Web and news. I don't have to the time. I think the negatives are grossly overblown (as usual) by liberals, since they are mainly "potential" and not reality. The risks are enormous in the coming years of a terrorist action that could dwarf the WTC tragedy. Since we are not invading Pakistan, Syria, Iran, etc. to hunt down terrorists (as if that would be effective... not), we are depending upon intelligence, especially here at home. So, you and Kerry like to disadvantage the Intelligence community when we need more. I would rather help reduce the chances of a major terrorist action than form a committee after another tragedy to investigate and conclude that our Intelligence organization was lacking.P.S. Hmmm. You seem potentially dangerous. Where do you live? Please be specific and give hours when you are home. As a liberal, you don't have a gun, do you?

I got the news from Newsmax, but it is misleading.
I should have known... nothing can move so fast with government.Correction: The Navy is not (yet) investigating Kerry. The DoD with cooperation from Attorney General must investigate the allegation first to see if the charges have merit worth pursuing. Then, the Navy would actually investigate.more from Chicago Sun Times:
Page not found - Chicago Sun-Times

C'mon. There are liberal and conservative groups that spin news to their views. So, no I am not concerned about this. Besides, the story is just beginning.With 200 vets discounting Kerry's version of events, I don't doubt that they may be onto to something. With Kerry not releasing records, and more and more Navy leaders speaking up, I suspect he is hiding something.I suspect the Democrats will pressure Bush to stop any investigation. Unfortunately, I suspect he will, since he is leading in the polls.

You did not prove that Bush lied. Your evidence indicates he was misinformed, as were the Intelligence gurus he depended on. That's not intent to deceive. You want to think the worst, and I give him the benefit of doubt because there is no reason for him to deceive.I tried to explain why Bush downplayed the Osama hunting. I was addressing the quotes without specifically referring to them. You just don't see or want to believe the strategy.I don't see abuse of Patriot Act. I think it is worth it to battle terrorism, which you still don't seem to think is a big threat.I am not going to recite all the evidence from news reports over the last year that reveals Al Qaida planning a more massive attack.
They are not stupid. They know it's hard to pull-off attacks, so they must be high-impact when they do work. That was why they chose airplanes on WTC. One wish intercepted by CIA is for a dirty bomb to put Manhattan inactive for 10,000 years.Our difference seems simple: You don't perceive a real threat that warrants the Patriot Act, but I do.

Before you take Whatever to task, check your own "truth".Dick Cheney does not have a conflict of interest with Halliburton equities. If he did, the Democrats would be all over this issue.Congress, not Bush, organizes the budgets and allocates the money. Bush cannot eliminate Social Security, even if he wanted.

You seem to rely on a lot of conspiracies and speculative intent instead of just evaluating the facts. For example, the 200+ SBV's make good points and feel strongly about their views. Unless you call all 200 liars or prove they have been paid for their views, then I don't think you can claim Bush is putting them up to it. You haven't convinced me that tactics are being used. That is your speculation and interpretation.
Besides that, the Democrats are the worst at using the very tactics you despise. Look at what MoveOn, MMoore, Kennedy, Gephardt and even Kerry says about Bush.