Peter Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 Bush is staying at the Four Season hotel not too far away from my office. Kerry is staying at the Sheraton in Bal Harbor (North of Miami). This town is excited that the debate is at UM. There are alot of supporters on the streets waiving signs. It may be difficult for me to get home, because I have to drive by UM and there is extra security in that area. Anyway, this sure beats the threat of a hurricane. It should be interesting (I hope) to watch these two guys go at it. With any luck, it will be a debate and not an inane side-by-side delivery of talking points. I predict that immediately after the debate, the surrogates from each side will claim victory for their guy. I know that I am going way out on a limb here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 Unfortunately for me, as a Republican, watching presidential debates is like watching the Bills play. I have no confidence they won't do something stupid, and I won't mind losing as long as we don't get our asses beat. By the way, there was a poster on TSW who said the only people watching the debate tonight will be either people who are firmly behind their candidate, or "backwoods morons." At least I know where you and I stand on this, Pete. Let me know when the backwoods morons show up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 I predict that immediately after the debate, the surrogates from each side will claim victory for their guy. I know that I am going way out on a limb here. 51460[/snapback] Actually, I've heard some of them doing that on the radio already... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 I predict that immediately after the debate, the surrogates from each side will claim victory for their guy. I know that I am going way out on a limb here. LOL. !@#$ing Libs DO have a sense of humor. Welcome to the party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted September 30, 2004 Author Share Posted September 30, 2004 LOL. !@#$ing Libs DO have a sense of humor. Welcome to the party. 51495[/snapback] You have to start reading my posts. I am a Reagan Republican. My problem with Bush is the optional war that diverted us from the real war on terror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 You have to start reading my posts. I am a Reagan Republican. My problem with Bush is the optional war that diverted us from the real war on terror. 51509[/snapback] I know Bud, we've read each other a thousand times. Just laughing about all of it. FWIW, you aren't going to hear much tonight that's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 You have to start reading my posts. I am a Reagan Republican. My problem with Bush is the optional war that diverted us from the real war on terror. 51509[/snapback] Hmmm. Who should I believe? General Tommy Franks (the Campaign CC) who states in his book that Iraq didn't divert forces from Afghanistan? Or Pete, who's never served in the military but does repeat the same talking points over and over again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Hmmm. Who should I believe? General Tommy Franks (the Campaign CC) who states in his book that Iraq didn't divert forces from Afghanistan? Or Pete, who's never served in the military but does repeat the same talking points over and over again? 51530[/snapback] Pete. Not serving is a better. He was never part of the BS pipeline. You are being lied to... Now go take that hill! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 2, 2004 Author Share Posted October 2, 2004 Hmmm. Who should I believe? General Tommy Franks (the Campaign CC) who states in his book that Iraq didn't divert forces from Afghanistan? Or Pete, who's never served in the military but does repeat the same talking points over and over again? 51530[/snapback] You should believe the guy who has contemporaneous notes of the conversation where Franks acknowledges this. P.S. If not serving in the military disqualifies people from commenting, why is it that these neocons (who never served in the military) have been allowed to take over the Pentagon? Why was Dick Cheney allowed to be Secretary of Defense? Why was Shinseki (spelling?) overruled by the neocons and then retired for disagreeing with them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 You think Franks would admit to one and all that he caved to political pressure? There are generals, now (made) retired, who aren't in bed with the neo-cons who say it was a bad move. Yep, the Army found Saddam by drastically reducing the forces in Iraq and outsourcing the job to Saudi Arabian soldiers.... P.S. If not serving in the military disqualifies people from commenting, why is it that these neocons (who never served in the military) have been allowed to take over the Pentagon? Why was Dick Cheney allowed to be Secretary of Defense? Why was Shinseki (spelling?) overruled by the neocons and then retired for disagreeing with them? 52982[/snapback] Well put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 You think Franks would admit to one and all that he caved to political pressure? There are generals, now (made) retired, who aren't in bed with the neo-cons who say it was a bad move. Yep, the Army found Saddam by drastically reducing the forces in Iraq and outsourcing the job to Saudi Arabian soldiers.... Well put. 53007[/snapback] Sorry, if you consider former AF CoS (& POS) Merrill McPeak a non-partisan voice then you don't know much about the man. Since none of you non-serving pundits who parrot the talking point know dick about force structure or doctrine, I'll defer to my own experience and knowledge on the subject. That pretty much agrees with what General Franks has been saying. The difference is, I've been saying it since the talking point was first vomited by the left. As for Pete's point on civilians in charge of the military, that's pretty much Constitutional. I have no love for this administration, nor most of its policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 You have to start reading my posts. I am a Reagan Republican. My problem with Bush is the optional war that diverted us from the real war on terror. 51509[/snapback] I agree with you, and I have to add his tax breaks- which were only to take advantage of the personality flaws in most americans- which means they want things now, and they dont care about any of the consequences. That money came from somewhere- he stole money from us, and gave it to us, as if he was doing us a favor? I'm most definitely not a democrat, but I have to say that GWB is a miserable failure in every sense of the word. God help us...we have to have one of these 2 imposters in office for 4 years. Kerry or Cheney, I don't like either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts