Where are you going with this? Kerry’s “anti-war stance” was a cynical expression of his political ambitions, and he’s vulnerable there too. The medals are a separate matter.

Ballantrae: Right on. But apart from the standard set of liberal ideas, WHAT explains the appeal of this shrew?

further, I don’t think anyone else would have been willing to go with Kerry at this point for a second reason. If Hillary won’t join him, then she’ll make sure he loses. Hillary is for Hillary first and foremost. If Kerry were to win that means she’d have to wait (at least) another eight years, and who knows if she could win it.

What I think she is doing, is she is hoping to run against Cheney, not Bush. Running against Bush in wartime is equivalent to running against Reagan in wartime. No matter what, he’ll win. Even if he won’t win, what exactly is Kerry going to do about Iraq?

Lets face it, the country is in the middle of a war. If Kerry wins, that war is going to become a mess. Remember Lyndon Johnson? That’s Kerry, only Kerry’s worse. If Hillary tied herself to that lunatic, she’d be killing her career, cause Kerry ain’t gonna win a second term, even if he gets lucky the first one. Nope, she’s looking to fight Cheney.

I despise the Dragon Lady, but for a used-car salesman she’s canny.

-ron

I think it was Marshall Petain, but that might be wrong.

Kerry has French Connections, so to speak, so that explains his affection for them. Liking the country and trusting them are not the same thing, though.

If you think about it, it’s because of the French that you and I and a lot of others got a tour of VN so many years ago.

Mark

Go easy on them. The fleet was under control of the Vichy Govt, which was backed by the Germans. The fleet was on, I think, the North African coast, which meant Germans nearby.

We wanted them to surrender to us (we were allied with the Brits) and the shear number of surrender possibilities was overwhelming. The Italians might even have come into the surrender scope too, so this was a major problem for the French Navy.

WHO do you surrender too with so many contestants?
It takes time to sort this out, maybe up to thirty hours of dice rolling, moustache twirling and wine drinking to find the best one.

LOL

Mark

Speaking of that, their poisonous nuke aircraft carrier lost pieces of the prop recently and had to sail back, after eleven years of repairs for bad electronics and radiation leakage.

Chirac said recently that the French military was the third best in the world. Maybe the third best in France, after Algerian street gangs and the transportation workers union.

One time on a cruise, the ships would take on fresh water from shore, in Marsaille, they filled the LST up with seawater, nice people those french, it took awhile to clean the tanks and they wound up making their own, which they can of course, but is alot quicker and easier to get it from shore, Then the skipper said,’ the hell with the french’.

It was found out it was not a mistake.

Mark

France today is “independent” of two things – principle and backbone. It is the walking ghost of Europe without the good sense and decency to lie down and shut up.

Mark

One other thing. IX observes that the country isn’t unified, but the two major parties are exactly the same. If you believe what you read about the polarization of the electorate, how can the parties be the same?

You might remember IXLNXS from the old Useful Fools site. He’s claims to be an old joint-lovin’ hippie but whose views are so weightless and vapid they amount to nothing.

IX:

You still haven’t answered my questions of two months ago about Iraq and a couple other issues.
One feature of having an opinion is that people can ask you questions about it, and then you are supposed to answer them. You never do, and I know why. You don’t an opinion. You’re the boring uncle who likes to hear himself talk.

Question of The Day for IX: Why do you say that the country isn’t unified? Is the country unified when everyone has YOUR point of view? If you shared my point of view, we’d be one person closer to unity. How about it?

Furthermore, This blog isn’t built out of pithy bricks form Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations. Maybe you should describe your own views and not FDR’s.

Mark

I could dredge up a dozen more implying the same sentiment. I’d agree with them all.

America needs someone that can indeed Unify the country. And it isn’t going to be any of the politicos being offered this round.

When in doubt,, empty the magizine.

Mark

1) All the manifestations of privilege among the plutocrats of the American Northeast, and the peculiar brand they carry from having gone to Yale. Ed, however, doesn’t know what a “plutocratic ruling class” is, because nothing he said would describe one.

2) The “tragedy of USA politics” is that Vice Presidential candidates have done an honest day’s work, and THE Presidents haven’t. This is Ed’s glittering idea about American politics. Brilliant.

3) The new political establishment in Iraq does NOT represent a policy to “get out of Iraq”. Ed is apparently not moving through time with the rest of us. Is he even sentient?

4) Australian politics is devoted to the lone task of buying useless military equipment from the United States. Australians, because of this, are “screwed”. This is almost too stupid to acknowledge as a point of view.

5) Everything there is know about Ralph Nader and Chris Rock, and recommends them as candidates on the basis of having seen the movie “Head of State”. A dazzling intelligence on display.

Ed didn’t mention a single word about radical Islam.