August 12, 2004
HONESTY.?......HONESTLY.!!
.
We all know the expression, “OPEN AND HONEST.”
If our President won’t meet with the press, refuses to let people who are not committed to him hear his campaign speeches and runs the most ‘closed’ administration possibly in history what conclusion should one draw?
CLOSED AND HONEST ?
HONESTLY !!!!
We all know the expression, “OPEN AND HONEST.”
If our President won’t meet with the press, refuses to let people who are not committed to him hear his campaign speeches and runs the most ‘closed’ administration possibly in history what conclusion should one draw?
CLOSED AND HONEST ?
HONESTLY !!!!
Labels: Bush Admin
August 10, 2004
WHERE THERE’S SMOKE .........??
PUBLISHED CAPE COD TIMES AUGUST 10, 2004
Regarding the now well known ad attacking John Kerry’s time of service, John McCain calls the ad “dishonorable” and Mike Barnacle calls it “political pornography.” I think it’s ‘slime.’
However, let’s for discussion sake, say that the blurred charges against John Kerry in the ad are valid. That would reduce John Kerry to a Silver Star and two purple hearts. Or, as John McCain says, their argument comes down to he should only get two and a half purple hearts.
Bottom line, John Kerry took fire, gave fire and without equivocation, served with distinction.
This leads me to two questions. On what page of the lexicon of “Family Values“, does sliming an opponent reside. Is there a chapter in “Family Values” that has the heading. “Children, If You Are Holy In Your Conviction, Any Means To Win Is Acceptable?” Are using unsubstantiated slurs and innuendo to dishonestly gain an edge on an opponent consistent with “Family Values?” How? Why?
How does one juxtapose a venal ad on a veteran with the Administration’s and it’s followers’ use of the concept, “Patriotism?” Criticizing the War is “unpatriotic” and undermines the morale of our troops is an often quoted refrain from the RNC, et al. If you don’t back the troops, you’re unpatriotic. And. Condi Rice, on Tim Russert’s show, “Every sacrifice of our men and women in uniform is felt very deeply by this President and all of us.”
Again, is that except when your cause is holy, in which case devotion to ‘Patriotism’ is negotiable? Negated? An obstacle to winning?
As to the smoke reference, the image I see is a very old and dry cow paddy in a meadow. You step on it and a puff of smoke escapes. No fire.
Regarding the now well known ad attacking John Kerry’s time of service, John McCain calls the ad “dishonorable” and Mike Barnacle calls it “political pornography.” I think it’s ‘slime.’
However, let’s for discussion sake, say that the blurred charges against John Kerry in the ad are valid. That would reduce John Kerry to a Silver Star and two purple hearts. Or, as John McCain says, their argument comes down to he should only get two and a half purple hearts.
Bottom line, John Kerry took fire, gave fire and without equivocation, served with distinction.
This leads me to two questions. On what page of the lexicon of “Family Values“, does sliming an opponent reside. Is there a chapter in “Family Values” that has the heading. “Children, If You Are Holy In Your Conviction, Any Means To Win Is Acceptable?” Are using unsubstantiated slurs and innuendo to dishonestly gain an edge on an opponent consistent with “Family Values?” How? Why?
How does one juxtapose a venal ad on a veteran with the Administration’s and it’s followers’ use of the concept, “Patriotism?” Criticizing the War is “unpatriotic” and undermines the morale of our troops is an often quoted refrain from the RNC, et al. If you don’t back the troops, you’re unpatriotic. And. Condi Rice, on Tim Russert’s show, “Every sacrifice of our men and women in uniform is felt very deeply by this President and all of us.”
Again, is that except when your cause is holy, in which case devotion to ‘Patriotism’ is negotiable? Negated? An obstacle to winning?
As to the smoke reference, the image I see is a very old and dry cow paddy in a meadow. You step on it and a puff of smoke escapes. No fire.
Labels: Bush Admin, Iraq/ foreign policy, Published Letters
