Sen. Kennedy Attacks President Bush's Credibility...Bush replies Kennedy is "all wet"

[heartsurgeon]

Reuters
Kennedy is lecturing Bush on credibility...that's rich beyond words...
for you kids out their who know nothing about the esteemed Senior Senator from Taxachusetts, i recommend you peruse these links:

convicted of leaving the scene of an accident (you or i would have been convicted of vehicular manslaughter at a minimum)
CHAPPAQUIDDICK - Kennedy's own words about the incident.

Gets into Law School inspite of being expelled from college (i'm sure that's standard)
Ted Gets Expelled from Harvard for Cheating

this is the same guy that woke his nephew (william kennedy smith) up at 1:00AM to go drinking (and subsequently get tried for rape)
this is the same guy that tried to sex-up a lobbyist on the floor of a restaurant while stinking drunk.

yep....the end of time is near at hand.....repent......a Kennedy is lecturing on credibilty..

 

[dpm]

Its hard to believe that people keep voting for him - normally the electorate is plenty willing to believe that theres no smoke without fire.

By the way - that "all wet" quote. That was from that satirical news story that people took seriously, wasn't it? It was supposedly said by Rumsfeld in the original, though.

 

[burnedout]

Heh, well, we might say that good old Ted "I missed the bridge" Kennedy at least seemed halfway sober while delivering his usual inane rhetoric.

 

[0roo0roo]

what right wing rag are you copying from this time supposed heart surgeon?

certainly you know bushies credibility has nothing to do with kennedys, bushies certainly capable of being a draft dodging rotten liar all by himself and has proved it time and time again. kennedy's not running, and certainly not running as someone who said he'd bring integrity back into the white house, let alone be a uniter not a divider etc etc like liar bush who obviously has no integrity.


<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0525948139/qid=1079277106/sr=8-8/">btw, heres a good book by Peter Singer, one of the top philosophers today. The President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush
by Peter Singer </a>

From Publishers Weekly
This book by controversial ethicist Singer (a founder of the animal rights movement) is both broader and narrower than it purports to be. It offers a look at almost every significant policy the administration has taken a position on yet offers little in the way of new philosophic inquiry. Singer pits Bush's rhetoric and prescriptions against his actions, going from the topical (terror detainees, the war in Iraq) to the abstract (utilitarian theories of government). Singer's arguments are often reasonable and well documented: he asks whether an administration that emphasizes smaller government should be intervening in state right-to-die cases and whether someone so vocal about the value of individual merit should be rewarding birthright by eliminating the estate tax. But anyone who has followed recent critiques of the administration would learn nothing new from these familiar arguments and conclusions, such as that the justification for the Iraq war might have been problematic. Singer's logic can also be mushy. A chapter that decries the influence of religion on Bush's policy dissolves into vague, emotional language better suited to a TV pundit than a philosopher. Singer's most intellectually adventurous chapter involves stem-cell research, where the author exposes fissures in Bush's "compromise" to allow research on existing stem-cell lines. But mostly Singer's critique does little to distinguish itself from other anti-Bush books.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Booklist
A president's vocabulary of moral judgment comes in for harsh scrutiny from a prominent ethicist. Whether examining the rhetoric with which Bush has explained the war against terrorism or parsing the justifications the president has marshaled to cut taxes and restrict stem-cell research, Singer identifies inconsistencies in ethical reasoning. Repeatedly, Singer accuses Bush of relying on moral terms that reflect only raw intuition, not systematic reflection. But in indicting Bush for an... read more

Book Description
From provocative ethicist and author Peter Singer, whose books have sold more than 700,000 copies: a chilling expos&eacute; of George W. Bush?s moral failure on dozens of hot-button issues.

More than any president in recent memory, George W. Bush invokes the language of good versus evil and right versus wrong. Controversial professor of ethics Peter Singer has put his spotlight on President Bush?s moral claims. The results are required reading.

Examining public pronouncements that have rarely been subjected to ethical analysis, on topics from stem-cell research and tax cuts to Iraq and the drive for American preeminence, The President of Good and Evil reveals the president?s pattern of ethical confusion and self-contradiction. Delivering his charges in accessible, logical, and lively chapters, Singer asks whether Bush has lived up to the values so often touted in current presidential prose.

The President of Good and Evil follows in the bestselling traditions of Stupid White Men and Lies . Singer has never shied away from controversy, and now enters the most visible arena of his life, with powerful arguments that throw new light on America under Bush.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dpm
Its hard to believe that people keep voting for him - normally the electorate is plenty willing to believe that theres no smoke without fire.

By the way - that "all wet" quote. That was from that satirical news story that people took seriously, wasn't it? It was supposedly said by Rumsfeld in the original, though.

Yeah, it was satire. I think it was of Rumsfeld at the intelligence hearings or something like that. Quite entertaining but I'd loudly applaud it if he really would say that

Yeah - 'Ol swimmer talking about credibility........now there is funny thought.

CkG

 

[Jhhnn]

Gotta love Heartsugeon's basic approach- Don't address the issues, simply attack the messenger over unrelated events from 30 years ago.

Not to worry, Kennedy won't be the only one employing this particular line of attack, given the basic truth of the accusation. Bait and switch will only work just so long, then folks get hip to it... examples from the Bushies are too numerous to mention, and permeate their policies and tenure all along the way.

As John Kerry put it-

"these guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group of people I've ever seen."

And it's becoming more obvious every day. Witness the attempts at obfuscation and hysteria from the thread author. This time, it's "But Teddy!" rather than "But Clinton!", but it still plays the same...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Gotta love Heartsugeon's basic approach- Don't address the issues, simply attack the messenger over unrelated events from 30 years ago.

Not to worry, Kennedy won't be the only one employing this particular line of attack, given the basic truth of the accusation. Bait and switch will only work just so long, then folks get hip to it... examples from the Bushies are too numerous to mention, and permeate their policies and tenure all along the way.

As John Kerry put it-

"these guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group of people I've ever seen."

And it's becoming more obvious every day. Witness the attempts at obfuscation and hysteria from the thread author. This time, it's "But Teddy!" rather than "But Clinton!", but it still plays the same...

The issue is "credibility" 'Ol swimmer has none. It most definately is addressing "the issues".

I can't wait for the kerry campaign to start having kennedy travel with them like they did a bit in the primaries. Kennedy is a liability nation wide for a general election although it might have helped kerry in the primaries. We'll see how much they trot him out though...If they were smart they wouldn't drag him around as kennedy is actually the more conservative Senator from Taxachusetts(according to vote ratings and such).

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

As somebody who is in very tight with God, I can promise you that in the cae ofKennedy is OK for us to cast the first stone of moral judgmentwhile having no Christian love in our hearts, because He hasn't forgiven him either. Kennedy is the Evil. We have a dispensation and a rare chance to gloat.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nice try, CkG, but it really won't wash. The issues-

Jobs

Education

Healthcare

Iraq

And those are just the ones Kennedy mentioned. There are, of course, many more-

Environment

African Aids Program

Fiscal responsibility

National Security vs Plame outing

9/11 commission stonewall

Cheney energy papers stonewall

Senior Drug program cost deception

And those are just off the top of the list, it's really a lot longer.

Yeh, yeh, yeh, Teddy screwed up bigtime 30 years ago, And Dubya's connections kept him out of combat, too- none of which is pertinent to an actual discussion of the issues of today, to the upcoming election.

I remember a guy who promised to restore honor and dignity to the Whitehouse, but delivered an entirely different package of goods. I remember a guy who promised smaller government, but delivered the opposite. I remember a guy who touted freedom and justice, but who keeps American Citizens and others locked up w/o benefit of charge or counsel.

Go ahead, attack Kennedy for that long ago incident. Demean yourself into the role of a lock-stepping dittohead fanboi. Cover your ears, repeat after me- "Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah....", repeat as necessary to maintain the optimal cranio rectal interface continuity... Or just drag Jebus into it, or rave about gay marriage, anything to avoid the truth.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice try, CkG, but it really won't wash. The issues-

Jobs

Education

Healthcare

Iraq

And those are just the ones Kennedy mentioned. There are, of course, many more-

Environment

African Aids Program

Fiscal responsibility

National Security vs Plame outing

9/11 commission stonewall

Cheney energy papers stonewall

Senior Drug program cost deception

And those are just off the top of the list, it's really a lot longer.

Yeh, yeh, yeh, Teddy screwed up bigtime 30 years ago, And Dubya's connections kept him out of combat, too- none of which is pertinent to an actual discussion of the issues of today, to the upcoming election.

I remember a guy who promised to restore honor and dignity to the Whitehouse, but delivered an entirely different package of goods. I remember a guy who promised smaller government, but delivered the opposite. I remember a guy who touted freedom and justice, but who keeps American Citizens and others locked up w/o benefit of charge or counsel.

Go ahead, attack Kennedy for that long ago incident. Demean yourself into the role of a lock-stepping dittohead fanboi. Cover your ears, repeat after me- "Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah....", repeat as necessary to maintain the optimal cranio rectal interface continuity... Or just drag Jebus into it, or rave about gay marriage, anything to avoid the truth.

Those may be "issues" but so is "credibility" and 'Ol swimmer has none which this particular "issue" is about. Him criticizing anyone on "credibility" carries about as much weight as Ron Jeremy criticizing someone on sexual promiscuity.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice try, CkG, but it really won't wash. The issues-

Jobs

Education

Healthcare

Iraq

And those are just the ones Kennedy mentioned. There are, of course, many more-

Environment

African Aids Program

Fiscal responsibility

National Security vs Plame outing

9/11 commission stonewall

Cheney energy papers stonewall

Senior Drug program cost deception

And those are just off the top of the list, it's really a lot longer.

Yeh, yeh, yeh, Teddy screwed up bigtime 30 years ago, And Dubya's connections kept him out of combat, too- none of which is pertinent to an actual discussion of the issues of today, to the upcoming election.

I remember a guy who promised to restore honor and dignity to the Whitehouse, but delivered an entirely different package of goods. I remember a guy who promised smaller government, but delivered the opposite. I remember a guy who touted freedom and justice, but who keeps American Citizens and others locked up w/o benefit of charge or counsel.

Go ahead, attack Kennedy for that long ago incident. Demean yourself into the role of a lock-stepping dittohead fanboi. Cover your ears, repeat after me- "Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah....", repeat as necessary to maintain the optimal cranio rectal interface continuity... Or just drag Jebus into it, or rave about gay marriage, anything to avoid the truth.

Those may be "issues" but so is "credibility" and 'Ol swimmer has none which this particular "issue" is about. Him criticizing anyone on "credibility" carries about as much weight as Ron Jeremy criticizing someone on sexual promiscuity.

CkG

But "'Ol swimmer," as you so tastelessly put it, isn't running for President. 'Ol Boozer/Snorter/AWOLer' is (since you're OK with labeling people according to things they did decades ago). Kennedy's credibility does not impair his ability to accurately point out Bush-lite's lack of credibility. One doesn't have to be a concert pianist to realize someone else's playing sucks.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice try, CkG, but it really won't wash. The issues-

Jobs

Education

Healthcare

Iraq

And those are just the ones Kennedy mentioned. There are, of course, many more-

Environment

African Aids Program

Fiscal responsibility

National Security vs Plame outing

9/11 commission stonewall

Cheney energy papers stonewall

Senior Drug program cost deception

And those are just off the top of the list, it's really a lot longer.

Yeh, yeh, yeh, Teddy screwed up bigtime 30 years ago, And Dubya's connections kept him out of combat, too- none of which is pertinent to an actual discussion of the issues of today, to the upcoming election.

I remember a guy who promised to restore honor and dignity to the Whitehouse, but delivered an entirely different package of goods. I remember a guy who promised smaller government, but delivered the opposite. I remember a guy who touted freedom and justice, but who keeps American Citizens and others locked up w/o benefit of charge or counsel.

Go ahead, attack Kennedy for that long ago incident. Demean yourself into the role of a lock-stepping dittohead fanboi. Cover your ears, repeat after me- "Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah....", repeat as necessary to maintain the optimal cranio rectal interface continuity... Or just drag Jebus into it, or rave about gay marriage, anything to avoid the truth.

Those may be "issues" but so is "credibility" and 'Ol swimmer has none which this particular "issue" is about. Him criticizing anyone on "credibility" carries about as much weight as Ron Jeremy criticizing someone on sexual promiscuity.

CkG

But "'Ol swimmer," as you so tastelessly put it, isn't running for President. 'Ol Boozer/Snorter/AWOLer' is (since you're OK with labeling people according to things they did decades ago). Kennedy's credibility does not impair his ability to accurately point out Bush-lite's lack of credibility. One doesn't have to be a concert pianist to realize someone else's playing sucks.

Actually since Kennedy is one with out credibility wouldn't that make him an expert in that field? As an expert regarding the lack of credibility, Kennedy's opinion about Bushes lack of credibility should be spot on

 

[DealMonkey]

It's comedy how the Bush bleaters can look past Dubya's own sordid past and realize he's a changed man, but not the same with Kennedy. Pure partisan politics, baby.

 

[nutxo]

Ive tried to get an answer about this many times.

If Bush was awol why did the press get very silent about the whole issue as soon as he released his records?

The only thing I can think of is he wasnt. The press had pushed the issue so hard that when they found out it was a non issue they shut up. I wanna see some apologies from the sh*tballs!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Actually since Kennedy is one with out credibility wouldn't that make him an expert in that field? As an expert regarding the lack of credibility, Kennedy's opinion about Bushes lack of credibility should be spot on

Very good point!

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's comedy how the Bush bleaters can look past Dubya's own sordid past and realize he's a changed man, but not the same with Kennedy. Pure partisan politics, baby.

Kennedy hasnt changed though.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's comedy how the Bush bleaters can look past Dubya's own sordid past and realize he's a changed man, but not the same with Kennedy. Pure partisan politics, baby.

Kennedy hasnt changed though.

Yeah he has, his face is now that size of one of Anna Nichols Breasts!

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's comedy how the Bush bleaters can look past Dubya's own sordid past and realize he's a changed man, but not the same with Kennedy. Pure partisan politics, baby.

Kennedy hasnt changed though.

Well, he's certainly lost weight and sobered up. If he'd just find Jesus, he'd be just like Bush.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice try, CkG, but it really won't wash. The issues-

Jobs

Education

Healthcare

Iraq

And those are just the ones Kennedy mentioned. There are, of course, many more-

Environment

African Aids Program

Fiscal responsibility

National Security vs Plame outing

9/11 commission stonewall

Cheney energy papers stonewall

Senior Drug program cost deception

And those are just off the top of the list, it's really a lot longer.

Yeh, yeh, yeh, Teddy screwed up bigtime 30 years ago, And Dubya's connections kept him out of combat, too- none of which is pertinent to an actual discussion of the issues of today, to the upcoming election.

I remember a guy who promised to restore honor and dignity to the Whitehouse, but delivered an entirely different package of goods. I remember a guy who promised smaller government, but delivered the opposite. I remember a guy who touted freedom and justice, but who keeps American Citizens and others locked up w/o benefit of charge or counsel.

Go ahead, attack Kennedy for that long ago incident. Demean yourself into the role of a lock-stepping dittohead fanboi. Cover your ears, repeat after me- "Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah....", repeat as necessary to maintain the optimal cranio rectal interface continuity... Or just drag Jebus into it, or rave about gay marriage, anything to avoid the truth.

Those may be "issues" but so is "credibility" and 'Ol swimmer has none which this particular "issue" is about. Him criticizing anyone on "credibility" carries about as much weight as Ron Jeremy criticizing someone on sexual promiscuity.

CkG

But "'Ol swimmer," as you so tastelessly put it, isn't running for President. 'Ol Boozer/Snorter/AWOLer' is (since you're OK with labeling people according to things they did decades ago). Kennedy's credibility does not impair his ability to accurately point out Bush-lite's lack of credibility. One doesn't have to be a concert pianist to realize someone else's playing sucks.

Actually since Kennedy is one with out credibility wouldn't that make him an expert in that field? As an expert regarding the lack of credibility, Kennedy's opinion about Bushes lack of credibility should be spot on

Didn't Bush and Kennedy co-write an education bill and it was passed by Congress?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice try, CkG, but it really won't wash. The issues-

Jobs

Education

Healthcare

Iraq

And those are just the ones Kennedy mentioned. There are, of course, many more-

Environment

African Aids Program

Fiscal responsibility

National Security vs Plame outing

9/11 commission stonewall

Cheney energy papers stonewall

Senior Drug program cost deception

And those are just off the top of the list, it's really a lot longer.

Yeh, yeh, yeh, Teddy screwed up bigtime 30 years ago, And Dubya's connections kept him out of combat, too- none of which is pertinent to an actual discussion of the issues of today, to the upcoming election.

I remember a guy who promised to restore honor and dignity to the Whitehouse, but delivered an entirely different package of goods. I remember a guy who promised smaller government, but delivered the opposite. I remember a guy who touted freedom and justice, but who keeps American Citizens and others locked up w/o benefit of charge or counsel.

Go ahead, attack Kennedy for that long ago incident. Demean yourself into the role of a lock-stepping dittohead fanboi. Cover your ears, repeat after me- "Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah....", repeat as necessary to maintain the optimal cranio rectal interface continuity... Or just drag Jebus into it, or rave about gay marriage, anything to avoid the truth.

Those may be "issues" but so is "credibility" and 'Ol swimmer has none which this particular "issue" is about. Him criticizing anyone on "credibility" carries about as much weight as Ron Jeremy criticizing someone on sexual promiscuity.

CkG

But "'Ol swimmer," as you so tastelessly put it, isn't running for President. 'Ol Boozer/Snorter/AWOLer' is (since you're OK with labeling people according to things they did decades ago). Kennedy's credibility does not impair his ability to accurately point out Bush-lite's lack of credibility. One doesn't have to be a concert pianist to realize someone else's playing sucks.

Actually since Kennedy is one with out credibility wouldn't that make him an expert in that field? As an expert regarding the lack of credibility, Kennedy's opinion about Bushes lack of credibility should be spot on

Didn't Bush and Kennedy co-write an education bill and it was passed by Congress?

Since when do Presidents co-write any legislation?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: nutxo
Ive tried to get an answer about this many times.

If Bush was awol why did the press get very silent about the whole issue as soon as he released his records?

The only thing I can think of is he wasnt. The press had pushed the issue so hard that when they found out it was a non issue they shut up. I wanna see some apologies from the sh*tballs!

Actually, no. The press was fairly critical of Bush's disclosure, pointing out remaining holes, inconsistencies, and a continued lack of corroborating witnesses. This continued for several days as they dug into various allegations and investigated what they could. Unfortunately, there were no significant developments to keep the story alive. Until there are, all the press could do is re-report what they've already reported. It is still mentioned from time to time in the context of other stories.

This is much like the Plame investigation. Everyone knows it's hanging out there, but until there are public developments, there's not much to report on. It's the same with the 9/11 Commission, Cheney's secret energy commission, and all the other malfeasance out of this White House. The press needs new developments to keep a story going. The only major exception I can remember is the whole Monica witch hunt. The press kept this alive because its salacious nature was good for ratings (and because the conservatives who own most media hated Clinton).

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice try, CkG, but it really won't wash. The issues-

Jobs

Education

Healthcare

Iraq

And those are just the ones Kennedy mentioned. There are, of course, many more-

Environment

African Aids Program

Fiscal responsibility

National Security vs Plame outing

9/11 commission stonewall

Cheney energy papers stonewall

Senior Drug program cost deception

And those are just off the top of the list, it's really a lot longer.

Yeh, yeh, yeh, Teddy screwed up bigtime 30 years ago, And Dubya's connections kept him out of combat, too- none of which is pertinent to an actual discussion of the issues of today, to the upcoming election.

I remember a guy who promised to restore honor and dignity to the Whitehouse, but delivered an entirely different package of goods. I remember a guy who promised smaller government, but delivered the opposite. I remember a guy who touted freedom and justice, but who keeps American Citizens and others locked up w/o benefit of charge or counsel.

Go ahead, attack Kennedy for that long ago incident. Demean yourself into the role of a lock-stepping dittohead fanboi. Cover your ears, repeat after me- "Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah....", repeat as necessary to maintain the optimal cranio rectal interface continuity... Or just drag Jebus into it, or rave about gay marriage, anything to avoid the truth.

Those may be "issues" but so is "credibility" and 'Ol swimmer has none which this particular "issue" is about. Him criticizing anyone on "credibility" carries about as much weight as Ron Jeremy criticizing someone on sexual promiscuity.

CkG

But "'Ol swimmer," as you so tastelessly put it, isn't running for President. 'Ol Boozer/Snorter/AWOLer' is (since you're OK with labeling people according to things they did decades ago). Kennedy's credibility does not impair his ability to accurately point out Bush-lite's lack of credibility. One doesn't have to be a concert pianist to realize someone else's playing sucks.

Actually since Kennedy is one with out credibility wouldn't that make him an expert in that field? As an expert regarding the lack of credibility, Kennedy's opinion about Bushes lack of credibility should be spot on

Didn't Bush and Kennedy co-write an education bill and it was passed by Congress?

Since when do Presidents co-write any legislation?

When he has a vital interest in it. Nevertheless, this was a bill that crossed the political spectrum and it was hailed by everyone.

A bit off topic but the President has been called ultra-conservative, socialist, stupid, deceptive, unilateralist, and multilateralist by the left-leaning crowd on this board. Now, which one is it?

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's comedy how the Bush bleaters can look past Dubya's own sordid past and realize he's a changed man, but not the same with Kennedy. Pure partisan politics, baby.

what sordid past? one dui decades ago?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Those may be "issues" but so is "credibility" and 'Ol swimmer has none which this particular "issue" is about. Him criticizing anyone on "credibility" carries about as much weight as Ron Jeremy criticizing someone on sexual promiscuity.

CkG

But "'Ol swimmer," as you so tastelessly put it, isn't running for President. 'Ol Boozer/Snorter/AWOLer' is (since you're OK with labeling people according to things they did decades ago). Kennedy's credibility does not impair his ability to accurately point out Bush-lite's lack of credibility. One doesn't have to be a concert pianist to realize someone else's playing sucks.

Ah, so it since 'Ol swimmer isn't running for President his credibility can't be questioned when he's the one yapping about credibility?
Right...

Anyway - an crappy pianist saying someone else's playing is crappy holds little weight Just like if Ron Jeremy was complaining about Promiscuity.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Those may be "issues" but so is "credibility" and 'Ol swimmer has none which this particular "issue" is about. Him criticizing anyone on "credibility" carries about as much weight as Ron Jeremy criticizing someone on sexual promiscuity.

CkG

But "'Ol swimmer," as you so tastelessly put it, isn't running for President. 'Ol Boozer/Snorter/AWOLer' is (since you're OK with labeling people according to things they did decades ago). Kennedy's credibility does not impair his ability to accurately point out Bush-lite's lack of credibility. One doesn't have to be a concert pianist to realize someone else's playing sucks.

Ah, so it since 'Ol swimmer isn't running for President his credibility can't be questioned when he's the one yapping about credibility?
Right...

Anyway - an crappy pianist saying someone else's playing is crappy holds little weight Just like if Ron Jeremy was complaining about Promiscuity.

CkG

Right, every music critic is a concert pianist. Cadidicy!