A few days ago President Bush announced a major redeployment of American troops overseas. Bush said that troops would be withdrawn from both Europe and South Korea. Kerry, of course, being the expert that he is on defense matters and fighting in actual wars and carrying actual guns and all that, had to oppose the President's plans. So The Poodle steps in front of a VFW convention yesterday and delivers this line:

"Why are we withdrawing (he actually said 'withdrawring' unilaterally 12,000 troops from the Korean peninsula at the very time that we are negotiating with North Korea, a country that really has nuclear weapons. This is clearly the wrong signal to send at the wrong time." John Kerry, August 18, 2004


Well .. that would have been just fine, if it hadn't been for pesky things such as memories. Just 17 days earlier Kerry had something completely different to say about troop redeployment:


"I will have significant, enormous reductions in the level of troops ...In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps." John Kerry, August 1, 2004


Man ... don't you just hate it when that happens?

Well, nobody can say that Kerry is on the "wrong" side of any issue as long as he stays on BOTH sides! :D

He voted for/against the $87B for the troops...
He does/doesn't own SUV's...
He was/wasn't in Cambodia...
etc., etc., etc....

Like most Dems, Kerry will talk much and do little. Bush doesn't talk much about it, just gets it done. :thumbup

you guys. really. here's why i think that post makes no sense, forget politics for just a minute if you can and tell me if you disagree with this:

kerry's former statement, on its face, sounds ok to me. it speaks of the present moment. he obviously disagrees with the timing of the removal of the troops at this time while we are negotiating with Korea. he says it sends the wrong message to a country we are negotiating with. whether you agree with the troop withdrawal from Korea or not while we are negotiating with them (do you, just curious?), this statement would not appear to pose a problem on its face.

Paul, you then quote the latter statement, which speaks of a potential future event, and juxtapose it against the former statement, as if it were to happen now, and imply that he stands on both sides of the issue. ridiculous argument. at some point in the future, we will not be negotiating with N. Korea, and because of that, it "may" be a possible place in the future that he reduces troops and therefore won't send the wrong message.

Paul, see the difference? I know you do, but in your zealousness to discredit one candidate, you totally ignore it.

now, personally, i don't think troop reductions from Korea is a good idea right now (Bush plan), HOWEVER, nor do i think significant worldwide troop reductions in general is particularly a good idea either (Kerry plan). that is based upon observations right now. it could change. but for the record, i don't support either candidate's position in that regard.

Fight fair Dave. No big words :goodfinge

juxtapose -v. To place side by side, especially for comparison or contrast.

for those that were wondering

sorry. :brownbag

Sorry Dave, no matter how I look at it, I see a flipflop.

The troop withdraw is going to take years. In the first quote Kerry tries to give the impression that this is something that 's going to happen overnight. (typical Demo scare tactics).

Paul, are you saying you don't understand my post? Or disagree with it? If you disagree, where do you think I'm wrong, I think I laid it out pretty clearly.

Paul, you then quote the latter statement, which speaks of a potential future event, and juxtapose it against the former statement, as if it were to happen now, and imply that he stands on both sides of the issue.


Dave, tell me when Bush's troop re-alignment will take place.
It will happen in the future!

Kerry, on 8/1, supported removing troops from Korea (in the future). Bush effects a policy of doing just that in the future, but then Kerry is opposed to it and making statements that try to give the impression that this is going to happen overnight.

ok, perhaps we are splitting hairs when we speak of the "future" as it pertains to both candidates.

bush's plan has taken two years to formulate and, according to him, proposes troop reductions starting now, and continuing over a 10 year period. so it would be now AND into the future. but isn't it something to announce troop reductions starting now when we are negotiating with N. Korea?? kerry wouldn't be able to implement troop reductions unless he was first President, and only then he "might" do it in Korea. i think his implication is that he wouldn't do it while we are negotiating with that country. i see a difference there, do you?

I think Kerry has never been a leader and what he "might" do is just another way for him to say whatever the group he's talking to wants to hear.

The man cannot be trusted.

i totally respect your opinion as to not being able to trust kerry, Paul. i don't trust politicians in general, so...if you don't feel you can trust someone, that's as valid a reason as any to not support him.

now, again, what about bush's decision to take troops out of Korea, haven't heard your opinion on that Paul.

It's all about spin. Both sides do it, the Dems are just more obvious. Kerry probably isn't all that bad of a person. He just really, really wants to be president, and all of the evidence I have seen to date shows that he has had this single-minded goal for all of his life. Everything he has done to-date has been a precursor to getting into the White House. Now, regardless of whether or not I agree with his politics, people who actively pursue power, and make it their life goal, scare me. JK strikes me as power hungry, and also as someone who is trying to tell me that he wants to tell me how to live. I get that impression every time I see him speak. It's not about the words that come out of his mouth. Those are sound bites, and have no real meaning. People who take either one of them seriously for what they say in speeches aren't really paying attention, and forget that BOTH candidates have whole speech writing STAFFS, who churn this shit out by the bucketful, every day. It's about demeanor, and about personal presence. JK doesn't have it. Not for me.

For me, Bush does have it. I feel that if I ran into him in a restaurant I could sit down with him and chat for a few minutes. THAT’S what I want from my leader. OK. He's not exactly the best public speaker in the world. And I seriously disagree with some of his positions, especially when it comes to domestic policy, such as stem cell research, and right to choose issues. I'm confident, however, that the system works as a whole, and even though he has some misguided ideals, he won't have enough political support to get some of his more radical ideas beyond the "say it on TV" stage.

I'm right there with him, however, on his ideas about taxes and privatized Social Security, and I think his foreign policy is good, too. Everybody whines about "Oh, we're pissing off our friends". Well, duh! They've been laughing at us, openly(!), for years while we back down to every request. Every time some foreign government comes in and says we have wronged them in some way, we, as a nation, have always backed down. That is stupid. So France and Germany didn't like it when we went into Iraq. WHO CARES? Like they are some sort of superpower or powerhouse nation? And Russia! SO WHAT? Russia is making those noises because they want everyone to remember that they ONCE were players on the world scene, and would like to get some of their prestige and power back. OF COURSE they're gonna complain. There is really only one other superpower in the world besides us (China), and they don't talk much. We ain't bugging them, ether, so they stay out of it.

Did Pres. Bush go on that run as a photo op? Of course. Do I believe that he stayed in touch with that soldier? Yes, I do. When it comes down to it, I believe that President Bush has respect for individuals, and John Kerry does not. THAT'S what makes JK not good for this country. He will follow whatever idea is hot at the moment, without regard for what effects it may have in the future, or even what effects it may have on things that are already in place. If enough people tell him it's a good idea, he'll go for it. Pres. Bush, on the other hand, has stuck to his main plan, making adjustments here and there as situations warrant, LIKE A GOOD LEADER SHOULD.

Now, everyone is fixated on Iraq. Well, yeah. It's big and in your face, and on the surface it seems at times that maybe we shouldn't have gone in there. People ask, "What does this have to do with Osama Bin Laden?" The answer is: NOTHING. It has to do with removing from power those people who would seek to do harm to us. It's about not waiting for someone to come in and nuke one of our cities and then we sit back and say, "Hey, maybe we should have taken that bastard out when we had the chance." We did that, remember? Clinton had Osama handed to him on a silver platter, and he turned it down. Whoops. Guess that was a bad mistake. Maybe that day he was more focused on getting a hummer, or was getting stroked in the back office, and couldn't be bothered. People say that his womanizing didn't have an effect on the nation. C'mon guys, be honest! When you're chasing skirt, do you really think too much about anything else? P#ssy is a MAJOR distraction! How could that NOT have an effect on every other thing he was doing? But I digress...

Everything either candidate does between now and the election is a photo op. Period. That's politics. I pay very little attention to what the candidates do or say between now and November, because they have only one thing to say, really:

"Vote for me because really, I'm like you!"

Except, JK isn't really like any of us. I can't see him out fishing. I can't see him out working a ranch. I can't see him actually doing ANYTHING that would ruin his manicure. And a person like that will never be able to relate to me, so why should I vote for him? I don't agree with his politics, I don't like his wife (actually, I despise her, and if she ever tries to get near my kids I'm calling the cops), and I don't like the way he comes across when he speaks. The only thing he has going for him is that if elected President, some day in the future, his face will look good on a dollar bill.

Ha, whoops, didn't mean to write a book. I'm not attacking anyone's beliefs. Really. We all have a pretty good idea of who we like and why (at least, those of us who post here...I can't talk for some of the others who just lurk). I respect that, even though I personally believe some of you are seriously misguided. That's your right. I'm just spouting off here, too. I felt I needed to say that.

Oh, and since the negotiagtions with N. Korea haven't exactly been made public, has anyone considered that part of the negotiations may involve structured troop reductions, and that a public announcement might be a way of signalling that intent? Just speculation....

see, now why aren't you, PeteyG, running for President?? That was some of the best reasoned, best stated, persuasive and non-offfending political commentating i have yet seen on this board. wow. my hat is off to you brother.

PETEYG FOR PRESIDENT!! Got my vote.

PAULT FOR PRESIDENT!! Got my vote.
:thumbup :thumbup :thumbup

Dave, I think the troop realignments sound good. We're still in a 'cold war' type dispersement and need to move into the 21st century.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the 70k troop relocated to our borders (both northern and southern)

see, now why aren't you, PeteyG, running for President?? That was some of the best reasoned, best stated, persuasive and non-offfending political commentating i have yet seen on this board. wow. my hat is off to you brother.

PETEYG FOR PRESIDENT!! Got my vote.

Ha! Thanks for the vote of confidence :thumbup :beer

But...Who would want the job? THAT is the problem with politics. The people who are REALLY qualified to lead this country (myself excluded...I'm not a good detail person, and I have skeletons...BIG skeletons...I'd rather keep them locked away) wouldn't run for president for anything in the world. I'm having a hard enough time just keeping my family together and raising my kids. Who would want to add that kind of headache to their lives? :wacko

Bush's record as Texas govenor predicted what he would do in the White House. What he's done in the White House, with a few exceptions, has satisfied me.

Kerry, on the other hand, has a lot of contradictions in his past including his record in Vietnam, as an anti-war activist (before the Vietnam War even ended), and his years in the Senate.

Ignore campaign retoric. Past is prologue and Bush's is more appealing than Kerry's.

PAULT FOR PRESIDENT!! Got my vote

PETEYG FOR PRESIDENT!! Got my vote

Spoken like a true Kerry supporter :goodfinge

Sorry Dave, I had to do it. Besides, it's better coming from me than your arch enemy 95.

ha ha. good one steve. but you forgot to add "radical leftist communist" to the adjective list. :histerica

Besides, it's better coming from me than your arch enemy 95.


Heck, we're all just a bunch of commie pinkos to him!
even me!! :brownbag

When we start talking to N. Korea, withdrawing troops at the time would show a want for negotiatons. It will also say "hey we aren't going to mess with you." Thats why if we pull out troops we should do it at the time to give the NK optimism about us.

Now myself personally think we should leave the troops there. Maybe make reduction in the number we have to show hey look we are pulling out troops but not a ton.
Europe we shouldn't pull any out of. Places like Germany and Turkey act as locations for forward deployment. We send our troops to Germany then to where ever they are going. Same for places like Turkey, Spain, Brittain, and Italy. Ramstien AB, Germany and Aviano AB, Italy are a huge hubs for the Air Force. But that is with my experience when it comes to overseas.

peteyg that was awesome. I have always wanted to say something about like that but end up getting to upset and say other things. Especially to that communist Dave. :goodfinge :thumbup

Pres. Bush explained his troop withdrawls last night on the news. The way it was explained was that the deployments in Europe are tank divisions in a cold war configuration, designed to repel an advancing Soviet attack. He is replacing them with lighter, more mobile forces that are better equipped to deal with the threats of today. That makes PERFECT sense to me. There was no explanation of Korea, as I would expect, but it did say that the redeployments were scheduled to happen over a 10-year period of time.

Hope that clears up any misconceptions.

see, now why aren't you, PeteyG, running for President?? That was some of the best reasoned, best stated, persuasive and non-offfending political commentating i have yet seen on this board. wow. my hat is off to you brother.

I couldn't agree more. :thumbup

Heck, we're all just a bunch of commie pinkos to him!
even me!! :brownbag


Who are you, again?

It's all about spin. Both sides do it, the Dems are just more obvious, ..... so forth and so on.

Absolute agreement.

Pres. Bush explained his troop withdrawls last night on the news. The way it was explained was that the deployments in Europe are tank divisions in a cold war configuration, designed to repel an advancing Soviet attack. He is replacing them with lighter, more mobile forces that are better equipped to deal with the threats of today. That makes PERFECT sense to me. There was no explanation of Korea, as I would expect, but it did say that the redeployments were scheduled to happen over a 10-year period of time.

Hope that clears up any misconceptions.


that i can agree with

I agree with the decision to re-deploy (re-position?) our forces. In addition to saving money by putting it into foreign treasuries, it also: Tells Germany and Japan to do more for their own defence, and
We have an air reach we didn't have 20 years ago.We still have a fleet of B-52's that are constantly being upgraded, B-1's, B-2's, C-5's, and who knows what next will roll out of the "skunkworks".

We are more mobile and able to get to hot spots quicker. We had boots on the ground in Afganistan three days after 9/11 collecting intelligence for example - from the U.S.

I won't deny that my decision to exit the Nat'l Guard in '81 came in part because our forward deployment was the Fulda Gap in Germany in the event of a combined Warsaw Pact/Soviet mass tank attack. We were only intended to be cannon fodder and a delaying force for a couple of months 'till regular forces could effectively defend.

The two real hot spots right now are N. Korea and Iran, both nuclear threats. It doesn't make sense to put our eggs in either one basket or the other. Has anybody bothered to watch what is going on at the Brit base on Diego Garcia?

And then there is the PRC.

it's a strategic proactive move that has been blown way out of proportion

personally i think we should reposition our military INTO north korea.

and france too.
baguette eating spineless jellyfish surrender monkeys.
no it's ok... i have leftist credibility... my grandpa won three purple hearts. he was shot once in france and twice in germany.

apperently some people think we should still be maintaining the maginot lines.

skunkworks! hopefully whatever comes next isn't given as a gift from kerry to the chineese. you know, as a sign of goodwill. clinton was nice to the norks, too.

and they freak about troop movements sending a soft signal. how about "here's a light water reactor... go make some some bombs!"

go ask some chechans how wonderful life is when communism and radicalism occupy the same space.

why does kerry need someone to moderate and retrospectively explain the meaning of his contradictory statements? and why does it take three 8-1/2x11 sheets of looseleaf paper, single spaced,12pt. to explain away two scentences? your eyes kinda glaze over....

beaver beer fart