Does Bush fear Kerry?

[tec699]

I'm just asking, because from what I've read Bush deeply fears Kerry. From what I've read the only blemish on Kerry's record is that his wife might be a liability. But besides that small mark, Kerry could possibly derail President Bush's chance at a second term at becoming US President.

Also, is it me or do people hate Bush? It could be my local newspaper, but they run these Bush cartoons and they make him look like a baffoon. Eh, maybe he is?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

No, Bush doesn't "fear" anyone. Kerry isn't the guy he portrays himself as and his past will be scrutinized as people like to do with Bush.

As for the hating Bush thing. It seems like the thing to do -no? Everyone tried to say Reagan was a dolt and buffoon too - guess that tactic doesn't work so well - no?

CkG

 

[mfs378]

I don't think Bush fears Kerry as much as he fears Clark. Kerry has a decades-long history in the senate; Rove and Co. will be able to pull all sorts of statements and votes out of the record and use them against Kerry.

What have they got on Clark?

And yes, people really do hate Bush.

-going to war on false premises, for ideological reasons
-costing the lives of over 500 Americans
-causing thousands of life-altering injuries
-causing the deaths of 10,000 innocent civilians
-reducing the stature of America in the eyes of the world

That doesn't include domestic politics, which I am sure include a whole other set of objectionable moves. Things like these will make people dislike their president.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
No, Bush doesn't "fear" anyone. Kerry isn't the guy he portrays himself as and his past will be scrutinized as people like to do with Bush.

As for the hating Bush thing. It seems like the thing to do -no? Everyone tried to say Reagan was a dolt and buffoon too - guess that tactic doesn't work so well - no?

CkG

Actually Reagan was pretty charming, and spoke well. Unlike Bush, he didn't end up being a buffoon and dolt until after getting out of office. As for comparing Reagan and Bush, well, we all know what his son Mike Reagan thinks of that.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Last month is was "Does Bush Fear Dean?" Yea, he does...now you can take your viagra.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: mfs378
I don't think Bush fears Kerry as much as he fears Clark. Kerry has a decades-long history in the senate; Rove and Co. will be able to pull all sorts of statements and votes out of the record and use them against Kerry.

What have they got on Clark?

And yes, people really do hate Bush.

-going to war on false premises, for ideological reasons
-costing the lives of over 500 Americans
-causing thousands of life-altering injuries
-causing the deaths of 10,000 innocent civilians
-reducing the stature of America in the eyes of the world

That doesn't include domestic politics, which I am sure include a whole other set of objectionable moves. Things like these will make people dislike their president.

well in bosnia when the russians occupied the airport, clark ordered that they be "removed" the british general under him disobeyed the order with the statement "i will not be responsible for starting WW3!"

and you people think bush is a "warmonger"...LOL! you have no clue...

 

[mfs378]

The reputation of the British general is the more pertinent question. He was second in command during the "Bloody Sunday" massacre in Ireland.

Now go look at what actually happened, instead of just quoting what the British General said.

 

[mfs378]

I'll even do it for you.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/elkins/elkins17.html

Jackson: "Sir, I?m not taking any more orders from Washington,"

Clark: "Mike, these aren?t Washington?s orders, they?re coming from me."

Jackson: "By whose authority?"

Clark: "By my authority as Supreme Allied Commander Europe."

Jackson: "You don?t have that authority."

Clark: "I do have that authority. I have the Secretary-General behind me on this."

Jackson: "Sir, I?m not starting World War Three for you."

Clark: "Mike, I?m not asking you to start World War Three. I?m asking you to block the runways so that we don?t have to face an issue that could produce a crisis."

Jackson: "Sir, I?m a three-star general, you can?t give me orders like this."

Clark: "Mike, I?m a four-star general, and I can tell you these things."

Ahh, irrefutable facts. You've got to love them when they're on your side.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: mfs378
I'll even do it for you.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/elkins/elkins17.html

Jackson: "Sir, I?m not taking any more orders from Washington,"

Clark: "Mike, these aren?t Washington?s orders, they?re coming from me."

Jackson: "By whose authority?"

Clark: "By my authority as Supreme Allied Commander Europe."

Jackson: "You don?t have that authority."

Clark: "I do have that authority. I have the Secretary-General behind me on this."

Jackson: "Sir, I?m not starting World War Three for you."

Clark: "Mike, I?m not asking you to start World War Three. I?m asking you to block the runways so that we don?t have to face an issue that could produce a crisis."

Jackson: "Sir, I?m a three-star general, you can?t give me orders like this."

Clark: "Mike, I?m a four-star general, and I can tell you these things."

Ahh, irrefutable facts. You've got to love them when they're on your side.

the fact is the russians were already there, blocking the runways then would have been a pretty much moot point...and to block the runways then they would have to have gone right through the russians to do so, hence the i am not starting ww3 comment. clark tried to go over his head and the brits still refused to confront the russians at the airport(did i already mention the russians were at the airport already then? yes. i did.) so trying to make it sound as if this was the decision and action by one brit general who you try to discredit is blatantly incorrect.

you painting part of the picture...and trying to be misleading while accusing others of doing so...typical.

 

[CanOWorms]

He wets his bed at night when he dreams about the upcoming election :Q

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Fear? I don't know, but worried. Notice the campaign appearances in NH and SC right after the Dem primaries.

 

[CaptnKirk]

George donsen't know the meaning of FEAR !

There are many other four letter words that he dosen't know the meaning of either.

 

[Shad0hawK]

by the way i am curious as to why you did not quote the rest of the article...

 

[mfs378]

Wrong on both counts.

The Russians sent out an advance force to the airport, which they planned to resupply by air. Blocking the runway would have stopped the Russians from doing so. Thus it was not a moot point at all. In the end, it wasn't neccesary, as the Russians were not given rights to use the airspace they would need.

Also, at the time Clark gave the order, the airport was unoccupied. Thus, they would not have had to go 'right through the russians.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm

 

[mfs378]

That wasn't an article, it was an opinion piece. A pretty poor one at that. I quoted the actual conversation between Clark and Jackson, and none of the author's writing.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: mfs378
Wrong on both counts.

The Russians sent out an advance force to the airport, which they planned to resupply by air. Blocking the runway would have stopped the Russians from doing so. Thus it was not a moot point at all. In the end, it wasn't neccesary, as the Russians were not given rights to use the airspace they would need.

Also, at the time Clark gave the order, the airport was unoccupied. Thus, they would not have had to go 'right through the russians.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm

uhh...the 200 person advance party WAS THERE(maybe that is why they were called an..."advance party"?) clark wanted to block the runways to prevent reinforcments if clark had attacked the russians are you really inane enough to beleive air a retaliatory strike would not come from the russians? you also seem to fial to realize the planes do not have to land at the airport, both the us and russia have had wonderful technology called a parachute that lets you drop people and supplies from the air...

 

[mfs378]

You can't para-drop a tank.

And Clark never ordered an attack on the Russians.

And the Russians were not at the airport:

A contingent of 200 troops, stationed in Bosnia, was already rolling towards Pristina airport.

General Wesley Clark, Nato's supreme commander, immediately ordered 500 British and French paratroopers to be put on standby to occupy the airport.

Try again.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: mfs378
That wasn't an article, it was an opinion piece. A pretty poor one at that. I quoted the actual conversation between Clark and Jackson, and none of the author's writing.

so did the "opinion piece" they matched word for word. you did notice that right? plus being ex military myself and living at fort hood with many people who were there, i know how a military organization(like say...the US Army...) works, that is how i know what an advance party is and does while you seem to be lacking in such knowledge...you still seem to not grasp around 200 russians were already at the airport that a direct confrontation with them would precede blocking any runways.

 

[mfs378]

I can't understand half of your post because of your lousy grammar. You seem to be lacking knowlege in that area.

Please show me some evidence that Clark wanted to attack the Russians, which is what you are implying.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: mfs378
You can't para-drop a tank.

And Clark never ordered an attack on the Russians.

And the Russians were not at the airport:

A contingent of 200 troops, stationed in Bosnia, was already rolling towards Pristina airport.

General Wesley Clark, Nato's supreme commander, immediately ordered 500 British and French paratroopers to be put on standby to occupy the airport.

Try again.

what is that quote from? and why do you post a link(the only link bTW) and then try to discredit it

wants some links?

from CNN

linky

quote

" the operation has been hindered by sporadic deadly violence and a tense impasse with Russian troops occupying the airport in Pristina."

from BBC news

linky

quote
"Details of Russia's surprise occupation of Pristina airport at the end of the Kosovo war are revealed in a new BBC documentary on the conflict.
For the first time, the key players in the tense confrontation between Nato and Russian troops talk about the stand-off which jeopardised the entire peacekeeping mission. "


just accept the fact you wrong(i know it is hard)

 

[Shad0hawK]

here is another quote from the BBC article from which it seems you got the "rolling toward the airport" comment that again was givin in a misleading fashion, and i bet you one of the bloody hypocrits who complain about bush being "misleading"

"A contingent of 200 troops, stationed in Bosnia, was already rolling towards Pristina airport." this comment was spekaing past events leading up to the russian occupation of the airport, it in no way means they never got here as the rest of the BBC article shows.

quote from bbc "The Russian advance party took the airport unopposed."

you obviously full of it, take your spanking and go home.

 

[mfs378]

I posted two links. That quote is from the BBC link. Here it is again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm I used the first link only to provide a copy of the dialogue.

I don't think anyone could deny that the situation was a tense one - certainly you can't say that that was my position.

The russians were trying to snatch their own 'sector' of Kosovo, WW2 Germany style.

The fact that it didn't happen is a good thing, wouldn't you agree? And I will agree that it is better it happened the way it did.

But if you are claiming that Clark wanted to attack the Russians, then you are wrong, and I will vehemently disagree with you.

 

[mfs378]

The russians took the airport unopposed because Clark's orders weren't followed.

 

[mfs378]

Sorry for the thread-jacking.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: mfs378
The russians took the airport unopposed because Clark's orders weren't followed.

well let me apologize for being terse, but you still not recognizing that the russians got there first, and the brits were ordered to prevent re-enforcements from arriving. it looks like we are both using the same BBC article so lets start there.

plus let me remind you again i am an ex combat engineer, living at fort hood and personally know people who were there

before the kfor troops even entered the proveince, the russians were already "rolling" toward the airport unkown to them they found out the russian advance party had already occupied the airport the article is giving a linear progression of events the rusians were instrumental in gettin milosevic to end stop his attacks they expected to be part of the post war administration, when they did not get it they sent a team to occupy the airport the only reason the russians were later "let in on it" was to avoid confrontation. kfor did not even know about them until the russian team was already well on the way. the


quote from BBC article.

"As Nato's K-For peacekeepers prepared to enter the province on 12 June, they discovered the Russians had got there first."


quote from the CNN article:

"An estimated 200 Russian troops surprised NATO by unexpectedly moving into Pristina ahead of alliance troops early Saturday."





linky

quote

"Desperate to demonstrate that it could still act without NATO's permission, Russia sent 205 troops to occupy the airport at Pristina, Kosovo's capital, on June 10, before NATO's troops had entered the province. "

again...kfor troops were not even in the province.