1

I read that one of the right-wing nut jobs, Ann Coulter joined in on the Kerry bashing. Nevermind that she mocked a triple amputee vet. Have the republicans ever once not attacked a war vet only to gain political power. Remember what they did to John McCain? Kerry was stupid to say what he did but wouldn't it be ironic for it to have an impact on, say, the Virginia race, where Jim Web's son is serving our country in Iraq.

2

Three things: One, it's quite clear that Kerry's "joke" was about Bush, and not the troops.

Two, Kerry said those things when he was much younger. It would be unfair to assume he still thinks that way.

Three, is it news that Kerry's not really a very bright, funny, or respectful guy? The 2004 election was like a sequel to Dumb and Dumber (I'll let you decide which one was Dumb and which one was Dumber).

3

I see the liberals are the first to comment, in the typical ad hominem / non sequitur fashion.

For what it's worth, the "joke" makes no sense structurally if Kerry meant to ridicule the President. It "makes sense" if the object of the joke is our troops. Occam's razor....

4

One, it's quite clear that Kerry's "joke" was about Bush, and not the troops.

It's really not that clear. One might be more likely to give him the benefit of the doubt if he hadn't built his political career on making derogatory statements about his fellow servicemen.

Kerry said those things when he was much younger. It would be unfair to assume he still thinks that way.

Why? What has he done since he made those statements that should cause anyone to change their opinion?

Kerry's not really a very bright, funny, or respectful guy?

I'll give you this one, but why given this, does it make sense make the assumptions that you do in your first two points?

5

I didn't find Kerry's 'botched joke' (as a reference to Bush) to be clear at all. But yes, he isn't very bright, funny or respectful and there are people that I know in the military who are far brighter, funnier and way more respectful than he is. He's an idiot along with many of the other hate-filled dems in that party.

People need to 'think' before they speak, and that goes for both Dems and Repubs.

The sad part is that, in all his arrogance, he would never have apologized had he not been pressured by prominent, fellow Dems and they would never have pressured him if there wasn't an election in less than 2 weeks that they desperately want to win.

6

I can't say I'm particularly offended by Kerry's comments. Are we so politically correct we must hide from the truth if it doesn't suit our sense of equality? There is a lot of unfortunate truth in his words. Pretending that there's not is just ignorant.

7

Sorry, but I am honestly incapable of seeing how Kerry's idiotic comment could easily be ascribed to an attack against Bush. If he actually meant it that way, he should have made it patently clear by adding something along the lines of, "...like Bush / the current President / this administration / etc." Leaving it hanging the way he did tends to make one think more of the people who are actually stuck in Iraq (like the soldiers and contractors over there), not the people who are metaphorically "stuck in" Iraq (like the President and the rest of the government).

*shrug* Kerry's "I'm sorry you were offended," apology shows what he really meant. What a bleeding moron. Of course, much of his original campaigning in the past Presidential election was how he was so much more intelligent than Bush, and had better grades, and went to better schools, etc. etc. etc.... Funny how that all fell apart, especially in the face of this current farce.

8

Where is the vet who Kerry ordered to sign war criminal papers in a hotel or he wouldn't give him a ride home?

9

Are we so politically correct we must hide from the truth if it doesn't suit our sense of equality? There is a lot of unfortunate truth in his words. Pretending that there's not is just ignorant.

Just for clarification, is the truth in his original comments (the troops are stupid) or his revised ones (Bush is stupid)?

10

Long before the 2004 election, I remember reading in one of Dave Barry's books how Dave was on line at a western ski resort to buy lift tickets, and John Kerry swooped in with his entourage and cut ahead of everybody in line. My first mental picture of Sen. Kerry, and, apparently, an accurate one.

The man exudes arrogance. It took him half a day to even realize how badly he had shot himself in the foot.

One less rival for Hillary to worry about.

11

"Are we so politically correct we must hide from the truth if it doesn't suit our sense of equality?"

Beyond the fact that what Kerry said is insulting to our troops is the fact that the "joke" he made about their education is flat out mistaken. The truth is our military is one of the highest educated in the history of the world and is significantly higher than the general population of our country.

So to criticize Kerry's statement is not to hide from the truth. It is pointing out his error by bringing the truth to light.

The whole thing was dumb on his part on so many levels.

12

I think Kerry is an honorable man; but apparently some feel that serving in the armed forces for this country doe not mean much. I also think that no good deed goes unpunished.

This is part of Kerry's 1971 Congressional testimony:

"But the problem of veterans goes beyond this personal problem, because you think about a poster in this country with a picture of Uncle Sam and the picture says "I want you." And a young man comes out of high school and says, "That is fine. I am going to serve my country." And he goes to Vietnam and he shoots and he kills and he does his job or maybe he doesn't kill, maybe he just goes and he comes back, and when he gets back to this country he finds that he isn't really wanted, because the largest unemployment figure in the country -- it varies depending on who you get it from, the VA Administration 15 percent, various other sources 22 percent. But the largest corps of unemployed in this country are veterans of this war, and of those veterans 33 percent of the unemployed are black. That means 1 out of every 10 of the Nation's unemployed is a veteran of Vietnam.

"The hospitals across the country won't, or can't meet their demands. It is not a question of not trying. They don't have the appropriations. A man recently died after he had a tracheotomy in California, not because of the operation but because there weren't enough personnel to clean the mucous out of his tube and he suffocated to death.

"Another young man just died in a New York VA hospital the other day. A friend of mine was lying in a bed two beds away and tried to help him, but he couldn't. He rang a bell and there was nobody there to service that man and so he died of convulsions.

"I understand 57 percent of all those entering the VA hospitals talk about suicide. Some 27 percent have tried, and they try because they come back to this country and they have to face what they did in Vietnam, and then they come back and find the indifference of a country that doesn't really care, that doesn't really care. . . .

"[W]e are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We are here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatric, and so many others. Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned? These are commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded."

"The Marines say they never leave even their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They have left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country...."

13

I think Kerry is an honorable man; but apparently some feel that serving in the armed forces for this country doe not mean much.

What should it mean, that you can go around saying stupid, insulting things and not get called on it? Bush (I & II) served in the armed forces of our country, but that doesn't get him any slack. Serving in the armed forces hasn't gotten me any slack. What makes Kerry special?

14

Incognito,

I wouldn't call Kerry's "apology" a real apology. A real apology first admits that a wrong was committed, even if that wrong was accidental. Then the person offering the apology expresses their regret over doing what was wrong.

In Kerry's case, he is not admitting that what he said was wrong, merely "misunderstood." Then he expressed regret that those who "misunderstood" him got angry. His "apology" came across as something like this: "You misunderstood what I said. I'm sorry that you're too stupid to understand what I was trying to say and that you got all bent out of shape over what I actually said."

In short, he offered an "apology free" apology.

Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt that he intended to direct his slam against President Bush, that's still not how the words came out.

All he really had to do was say something like this. "I intended my remarks about a lack of education to be directed against President Bush. However, I botched the joke and accidentally insulted the military troops instead. I regret the unintended insult and I'm sorry that it happened."

From there, he could have even gone back to his typical attacks against Republicans and no one would have had room to complain about his "stuck in Iraq" comment. But instead, he just compounded his original error by getting all belligerent and stating that he will never apologize, and then he didn't, even when he "did."

15

The greatest irony of all is that we now know that Bush had a higher GPA at Yale than Kerry and also had higher SAT scores. Kerry should be careful whom he calls stupid.

16

How about a moratorium on presidents from Yale? Sounds good to me.

17

Oh come on now-
Kerry flubbed his line just as Pres.Bush has many times too.
Lets not pretend to think this is anything other than unjustified indignation.

18

Kerry (did you know he Served In Vietnam?) is a cartoon of himself. I'm surprised he hasn't showed up on South Park.

His public speaking voice is so pompous, you expect it to have a Voice-of-God reverb remix. He does not speak to people, he speaks AT people. As in down from on high.

Then there's his obsession about how he Served In Vietnam (TM); he name-dropped it so much during the 2004 campaign it became a running joke. Like the joke commercial during 2004 whose format was repeating the following two-liners:

Announcer: "Senator Kerry on (fill-in-the-blank)"
Kerry Voice: "WHEN I SERVED IN VIETNAM..."

This repeated five or six times "on" the economy, health care, pretty much every issue save one, all with the same Kerry-voice reply.

Then came the last one:

Announcer: "Senator Kerry on Iraq"
Kerry Voice: "WE MUST GET OUT OF VIETNAM!!!! NOW!!!!!!"

I always pictured him on Married with Children as Al Bundy's separated-at-birth twin. How so?

Al Bundy: "I was a Football Star in High School. Once I scored three Touchdowns in one game."
Senator Kerry: "I was a War Hero in Vietnam. Once I scored three Purple Hearts in one tour."

Like I say, the guy's a cartoon.

19

Actually Kerry was mostly correct. The volunteer army is dominated by the poor and minorities (except in more elite areas). This isn't all that amazing. Patriotism is a reason for many to join but the fact is deciding factors are often money for college, a career path that featuers stability and room for steady advancement or long run security (pension etc.). Those who are well off have other avenues where they can obtain these things so military enlistment does appeal to what we often call 'underprivilaged'.

What many, including Kerry, didn't realize was that a volunteer army meant that the lives of soldiers actually became valuables to top brass and military planners. No longer was 'cannon fodder' cheaply provided by a draft. When you have to spend thousands to get someone you can't afford to get him killed. So after Vietnam casualty rates dropped like a rock. Since people were now expensive millions were invested in machines and hardware to avoid combat deaths so now we fight a war where 1,000 die a year rather than per week or month.

20

"I didn't apologize for my asinine attempt at a joke before I did apologize for my asinine attempt at a joke..."

21

Who gives a rat's a** what Kerry said? This is a lame attempt by Republicans to deflect attention away from their incredible failings as the governing party. And calling on Kerry to apologize? What chutzpah. When was the last time Bush apologized for anything?

Five more days! Five more days! Five more days!

22

"The volunteer army is dominated by the poor and minorities (except in more elite areas)."

Boonton, you got any research data to back that up? Or is it just something that everyone "knows"?

But of course that is not what Kerry was saying at all. He basically said stay in school or end up in Iraq. The implication being that our troops are uneducated or drop outs, not poor.

He's totally wrong on that one. The military is much more educated than the national average.

23

Ted Haggard just made this irrelevant...

24

The volunteer army is dominated by the poor and minorities (except in more elite areas)

I just love how Boonton automatically equates this with "stupid."

25

The feigned outrage by the Republicans has really sickened me.

Were Kerry's comments ill-advised? Yes. Were they poorly worded? Absolutely. But was Kerry really intending to slur U.S. Troops a week before the elections, when the aim of his previous comments were focused solely on Bush?

Doubtful.

As it is, this reminds me, honestly, of the outrage over the Pope's comments. These comments by Kerry were seized by Republican operatives who were practically salivating at the mouth, ready to wage their own type of war that just needed an excuse. I just don't buy the "outrage" of Hugh Hewitt et. al. It's politicking, plain and simple.

By way of context, I'm a registered Independent. I'm also pro-life evangelical Christian. And I am sick and tired of the vitriol, hatred, and bile being spewed by so-called "Christian conservatives."

p.s. When Kerry was saying all those things, Bush was busy putting other people's lives in danger by getting a DUI. But we got past that.

Can't we put Kerry's history to rest (once and for all) and just give him the benefit of the doubt?

26

The feigned outrage by the Republicans has really sickened me.

Reminds me of the feigned outrage by Democrats over Trent Lott's comments at Strom Thurmon's 100th B-day, Foley's emails, or the George Allen "maccacca" flap.

27

Can't we put Kerry's history to rest (once and for all) and just give him the benefit of the doubt?

So when people say "Bush lied, people died" or accuse him of going to war to benefit Haliburton, that's them giving him the benefit of the doubt?

28

So when people say "Bush lied, people died" or accuse him of going to war to benefit Haliburton, that's them giving him the benefit of the doubt?

No; Ees Party Line, Comrades.

29

ucfengr:

Sorry, but George Allen's remarks spark more than feigned outrage.

As does his cavorting with the CCC, and putting severed animals' heads in people's mailboxes because he doesn't like their ethnicity.

Yes, the last thing was years ago, but the CCC cavorting was recent.

30

Give President Bush the benefit of the doubt. We haven't had an attack on the Homeland since 9-11. Look around the world . I think the Administration must be doing something right.

31

As does his cavorting with the CCC

George Allen covorts with Campus Crusade for Christ?!! That monster!!

putting severed animals' heads in people's mailboxes because he doesn't like their ethnicity.

Must have been either a small deer head or a large mailbox.

32

Sorry, but George Allen's remarks spark more than feigned outrage.

Yes, I know that it outrages you that Republicans are aloud to wander about freely, instead of being in re-education camps where they belong.

33

One guy tried to make a stupid joke.

Another guy, who claims to be an evangelical christian, dishonestly starts a war with all it's resulting loss of life and damage for us and the Iraqis.

Which one is worse?

34

Another guy, who claims to be an evangelical christian, dishonestly starts a war with all it's resulting loss of life and damage for us and the Iraqis.

Of course he lied, there's no way Bush could have made an honest mistake and just read the evidence wrong, like every other intelligence service in the world and his predessor. He lied and the thing that upsets him most is that he's only killed 2000 troops and 600,000 towelheads and only made $10 billion for Exxon and Haliburton, but hey, we have to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt because he served in Vietnam and he would never denigrate the troops, right?

35

john wyatt:

You asked in the other thread how it is you were masquerading. Your comment above about how Bush dishonestly started a war is exactly what I'm talking about. Anyone who thinks Bush lied to get us into a war is not serious--or honest.

36

ucfengr:

Maybe you didn't get the memo: the CCC is a racist group that favors making illegal marriage between different racial groups.

That's repugnant. George Allen is repugnant.

37

But enough of John Kerry. Do you think that Ted Haggard has a bright future ahead of him like John Paulk, doing guest spots now and then on local fundamentalist radio as a chef?

38

No one is taking the bait, Mumon. Now go away.

39

Harry:

Does hurricane Katrina mean anything to you?

Yeah, by al Qaeda, Bush has been doing a bang up job:

• He withrew the troops from Saudi Arabia, a key al Qaeda demand. No kidding. Look it up.
• He got us stuck in Iraq (that was what Kerry meant to say. Which al Qaeda loves, because they can recruit martyrs for their jihad.

And we've had thousands of Americans, and likely more Iraqis killed than Saddam Hussein.

Heckuva job that Bush is doing.

40

Bumpus:

I always realize there's some folks who get things last of all, but it's all been a big, fat fraud.

That's why nobody really cares what Fox News or what Bush or Cheney make out of what Kerry misspoke.

You've been played, and played like a cheap fiddle.

You may not buy it, but that's OK; the rest of America has it pretty much figured out by now.

41

JD,

"Anyone who thinks Bush lied to get us into a war is not serious--or honest"?

Sorry, I honestly just don't understand your reasoning here. The facts are out there.

Rather than insult you or give you a lengthy explanation here, I'll refer you to an article by Paul Sperry on WorldNetDaily from October 2003 (just google, "yes, bush lied" and the article should come up). Read the article, it has lots of facts and is not a left wing smear job. Is the author not serious or honest?

John Wyatt

42

John,

Apparently you haven't been keeping up with the latest information. Read this, and especially this.

43

Latest information??

A rancid cartoon blog with wild speculation is offered as evidence of *actual* weapons of mass destruction?

Next time send us to a link with *text* not cartoooons. Even President Bush isn't stupid enough to suggest there were WMD's in Iraq. At least he is smart enough to give that up.

I know it has big words...but please get your "information" from the actual Duelfer Report instead of the 'toons:

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html

44

Ucfengr,

Don't cede any ground abouted alleged feigned outrage on the part of Republicans.

Maybe Rush Limbaugh has been feigning outrage -- I don't listen to him -- but Tony Snow, President Bush, Dick Cheney, and the other grown-ups in the Republican party haven't done so. They have just been pointing out that if Kerry misspoke, it must have been a Freudian slip, because the "botched joke" sure fits in with everything else the Senator has been saying the past two years. Just as damning is the fact that it sure was hard for Senator Kerry to apologize for his remarks.

President Bush and others also pointed out that Senator Kerry's attitudes about the military may have a wider currency in the Democratic party than the New York Times or CNN would care to admit. They suggested that voters should inquire of their local Democratic candidates just how they feel about the military and the people who serve in it. A lot of Democrats actually came out and agreed with what Senator Kerry said about the troops!

So I don't think the "feigned outrage" accusation holds any water.

Ed "What the" Heckman and Joe McFaul,

I have already downloaded and read the front-page New York Times article today that supports the Saddam-WMDs claims of pre-war U.S. intelligence. So when I clicked through on the first of Ed's links to the"Captain's Quarters" blog, I was primed to read and savor Ed Morrissey's insights and revelations about all the de-classified intelligence that has been pouring out of Iraq lately.

But I wouldn't have done so if Joe McFaul hadn't piqued my curiosity by labelling Ed's links as cartoon propaganda -- thanks Joe!

By the way, Joe, calling "Captain's Quarters" a "rancid cartoon blog with wild speculation" is really dishonest -- there's absolutely nothing rancid or dishonest or wildly speculative about it. Shame on you!

45

No, I want to talk about Ted Haggard - Dobson's best pal and advisor to George Bush.

I want to know what the evangelical crowd plans to do about this. And after you forgive him and pretend he didn't do any of these things because we're "all" sinners, are you going to let him get close to children in unsupervised settings?

46

Wow, thanks for the link Ed.

This is big. Really big. And as Paul writes at Wizbangblog it is a win/win for Republicans.

Either the New York Times is right and Saddam was within a year of getting nuclear bombs, or the New York Times is trotting out a hit piece as a November surprise for the elections.

Seriously, Carl Rove must control the New York Times.

47

Hey Raven,
Geezzz!!! Give it a rest!! Why don't you wait until the truth is actually known either through Haggard's own admission or by some other means of revelation??? At this point, the Haggard story is nothing more than speculation. By the way, we are all sinners, and not because the evangelicals or any other church leader says so but because the Creator of the universe has revealed it to all of His creation. It shouldn't be a great suprise to you, me or anyone else in this world.

48

John Wyatt:

This is why I don't want to talk to you about serious issues. In order to believe that George Bush lied you have to be stupid enough to believe that the whole Clinton administration, the United Nations, the US Senate, the House, every country in the Western World, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, William Cohen, Madeleine Albright, Sandy Burglar and yes, even Al Franken lied about WMD in Iraq. Let me explain something to you, John Wyatt. Please shut up.

49

Jd, Saddam had at one time WMD but the program was dismantled. The one thing that the president, I would think, would be his torture program. Google a new story about a one, Alyssa Peterson, killed American soldier. Yes, I know your arguement, you feel safe with such tools. That is stupid and un-Christian!

50

But of course that is not what Kerry was saying at all. He basically said stay in school or end up in Iraq. The implication being that our troops are uneducated or drop outs, not poor.

Actually he said he meant to include the word 'us' in his statement as in if you let yourself be dumb you'll do stupid things like getting us stuck in Iraq. Since there's no draft all you got to do to not end up in Iraq is simply not join the armed forces. If you don't join you can be as dumb as you want and never have to worry about Iraq. This would also be more sensible because, gee, Kerry is a Democrat after all and he isn't exactly a fan of Bush's war policy.

I just love how Boonton automatically equates this with "stupid."

Actually I was focusing on one of the other quotes Joe gave.

So when people say "Bush lied, people died" or accuse him of going to war to benefit Haliburton, that's them giving him the benefit of the doubt?

I have not heard anyone serious assert that the war was started to benefit Haliburton. I have heard accusations that Haliburton has gotten favorable treatment from the administration and has been allowed to profit unjustly at taxpayer expense.

Mumon:
Maybe you didn't get the memo: the CCC is a racist group that favors making illegal marriage between different racial groups.

Are you sure about that or are you thinking of Bob Jones University? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_Crusade_for_Christ seems to indicate that the CCC is a rather mainstream religious organization that has been around for quite a while.

Chris:
He's totally wrong on that one. The military is much more educated than the national average.

Before or after service? If you take a portion of the population and give them free training during a period of time and then offer them free schooling of their choice afterwards (or serious subsidies) then of course you'd expect them to have higher than average education afterwards. If they didn't after all that opportunity then quite frankly you must have really scrapped the bottom of the barrel.

51

Greg Zenitsky:

Deep down in places you don't want to think about while you "fellowship" after Sunday worship you know that there's no need to "wait until the truth is actually known," because whenever something like this goes down, it's always the hooker who has more integrity, honesty, and morality than the right-wing moralist.

Oh, and we already do know: the voice tapes have verified that it's Haggard, and I have heard reports that he's already admitted it.

Time for Haggard to blame some substances and waltz off to rehab, and than make a re-appearance on radio shows as John Paulk has done in the Portland area.

Really, how many times, does it take before you folks figure it out?

52

Right, Mumon. Here's the script:

1. Haggard makes a blubbering public apology, all full of mea culpas and "I accept responsibility."

2. Lots of finger-wagging amongst the church elders, and plenty o' tsk-tsking.

3. Haggard's wife appears by her husband's side, vowing that she forgives him.

4. Haggard begins mega-tour, talking about his "fall from grace," and the evils of homosexuality and illicit drug use.

5. Everybody blames the evil gays and their secret agenda - they targeted Ted and he was the victim.

6. Refreshed and restored from spreading his important anti-gay message to the faithful, Haggard is officially re-embraced and resumes his place at the top of the evangelical world.

If it happens any different, I'll be utterly astonished.

53

Joe mc,

I think you've been spending too much time practicing your "reading" with Playboy. There is *text* there, a whole lotta text, with links backing it up and everything.

Sorry, I slipped into patronizing mode there.

Joe, it seems obvious to me that you took one glance "Captain's Quarters" and decided you didn't like what it had to say. Calling it a "cartoon blog" and dismissing what he writes as "wild speculation" wildly misstates both the blog's format and the efforts made to make sure the information presented is verified.

First of all, the cartoon isn't produced by the guy running Captain's Quarters. He just links to it because he thinks the content is good enough that he wants to share it with his readers. The strip actually comes from www.daybydaycartoon.com. Captain's Quarters isn't the only blog that includes Day by Day on their site; many other conservative blogs include it on their pages as well.

Second, Captain's Quarters was active long before he started including Day by Day. The entire point of his blog has been to post solid information, backed up with references to his sources. That's why you'll find multiple links in every important article. In the case of these documents, he links to the originals which allows the translations to be confirmed.

Third, the entire point of the first article is that he has been releasing translations of captured Iraqi documents for some time. Even though they where posted en masse on a government hosted web site so that civilians could access them and help with translation, he has always had some concern about the credibility of these documents. The story by the New York Times about the site being shut down so that the how-to information about building an atomic bomb won't get out just adds to the credibility of those documents. (There's no point in shutting them down if the information isn't accurate and could actually lead bomb builders astray.)

Those documents show that Bush did not lie, Saddam did have WMD's, they were transferred to Syria about a week before the war, he really was pursuing an atomic bomb and he was getting close, AND he was supporting Al Qaeda. You can continue your "La, La, La, I can't hear you!" approach to these documents, or you can face up to the fact that you are wrong and to what that means, both for you personally and for us as a country.

54

JD,

"Let me explain something to you, John Wyatt. Please shut up"?

I see you have "drunk the koolaid" and Bush would have to address the national from the oval office and admit he lied before you would question the motives behind the Iraq war.

Any further discussions would be pointless as your mind is closed.

John

55

John Wyatt:

It is thee who has partaken of the Kool-Aid. The reason behind the Iraq war is well known to Americans now - Bush as much as admitted it while talking to Rush windbag the otherday: it's all about the oil. Control of oil.

Not access, buddy, control.

Control so the price is high, so the profits are high, so you get fleeced at the gas pump (and so folks like me can make a tidy profit on energy equities, thankyouverymuch.)

If it weren't the case, there'd have been a half million troops and a draft, if it really was all that "important to national security," yada yada yada.

Oh the "plans for the bomb?" Who cares? A junior/senior undergrad in physics can do that. It's enrinching uranium that's the trick. Or getting plutonium. Neither of which Saddam Hussein was in any positino to do/acquire.

Like I said, the average American has figured this out for months. That's why we're talking back at least the House, and it's increasingly looking like the Senate.

And we figured out folks like Ted Haggard years ago.

56

Classic Mumon day:

It’s no longer Kerry, now it’s Ted Haggard.
Sorry, you’re wrong about Haggard, now it Allen.
Guess again, it’s back to Haggard.
Don’t forget, we still got Katrina, troop withdrawal from Saudi Arabia (what the heck does that have to do with anything, and remember, we’re still in Iraq.
Back to Kerry. He misspoke, I tell you, he misspoke!
Still, don't forget about Haggard.
Oil, I tell you, it’s oil!!!
And what about grad students? They're making bombs! You’re forgetting grad students! More dangerous than Saddam! Much more dangerous! Bush should have attack universities!

It Mumon’s new 3 card monte! No, make that 4 cards! But wait, there’s even more cards!

57

Am I missing something in the NYT "How-to-build-an-A-Bomb" story? Is there a reason this is buried in the 16th paragraph?

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

While I believed that Saddam had the capability to produce chemical and biological weapons, I didn't think he had the means to build an A-Bomb. Have I missed something? Has Iraq's nuclear capabilities been common knowledge and I just missed it?

58

Scott:

I was merely responding to others' comments...

(what the heck does [Saudi Arabia] have to do with anything...

In case you missed it removal of US forces from the "holy lands" of Islam was a key al Qaeda demand.

Which Bush caved in on.

Oh, and I said undergrad students.

It's really not that difficult to make a fission weapon provided you have the materials, which Saddam didn't.

That seems obvious to everyone...except the in denial righties...

59

There were NO ties between Saddam and al Quead. The BBC...

Saddam 'had no link to al-Qaeda'

Democrats say the report weakens Mr Bush's case for war
There is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders prior to the 2003 war, a US Senate report says.
The finding is contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate's Intelligence Committee on Friday.

60

"Which Bush caved in on." And now there's this..
American troops abandon Captured US soldier in Sadr. Sad.

61

He's totally wrong on that one. The military is much more educated than the national average.

Before or after service?

Boonton, the answer to your question is before, during, and especially after. You can go here for some research data to back it up.

Apparently even you, in all your obvious hostility toward our military, appear to see that the services value education. (Why else would they offer all those educational opportunities for service members?) Kerry, however, seems to think they are all uneducated idiots.

Some folks seem to think that people only join the military because they don't have any other choice or opportunities elsewhere. Bzzzzzt! Wrong answer.

The vast majority of our service members volunteer because they want to. They have just as many opportunities as everyone else. This is America after all. Yet they choose to put on a uniform because they see value in service.

That's something that self-serving folks (*cough - like John Kerry - cough*) don't come close to understanding. It's a completely different value system and different world view. To those selfish folks, military service is "stupid" and people who choose it "must not have any other option."

It doesn't compute with those folks that people in uniform had lots of options and still chose military service anyway.

62

Moby There were NO ties between Saddam and al Quead.

This is from one of the documents released by the Foreign Military Studies Office
Joint Reserve Intelligence Center. The document, ISGZ-2004-009247, is a review of Iraqi Intelligence Service contacts in the region and summaries of the combined efforts that they produced:

A. During the visit of the Sudanese Dr. Ibrahim Al-Sunusi to Iraq and his meeting with Mr. `Uday Saddam Hussein, on December 13th 1994, with the presence of the respectable, Mr. Director of the Intelligence Services, he [Dr. Al-Sunusi] pointed out that the opposing Usamah Bin Ladin, residing in Sudan, who expressed reservations and fear that he may be depicted by his enemies as an agent for Iraq; is ready to meet with us in Sudan (The Honorable Presidency was informed of the results of the meeting in our letter 782 on December 17th 1994).

[...]

C. The approval was received from the Leader, Mr. President, may God keep him, to designate a program for them {QCC: UBL and the Sheikh] through the directed radio broadcast. We were left to develop the relationship and the cooperation between the two sides to find out what other avenues of cooperation and agreement would open up. The Sudanese were informed of the Honorable Presidency’s approval of the above through the representative of the Respectable Director of Intelligence Services our Ambassador in Khartoum.

D. Due to the recent situation in Sudan, and being accused of supporting and embracing terrorism, an agreement with the opposer Saudi Usamah Bin Laden was reached, to depart Sudan to another region; whereas, he left Khartoum in July of 1996. The information indicates that he is currently in Afghanistan.

The relationship with him is ongoing through the Sudanese side. Currently, we are working to revitalize this relationship through a new channel in light of his present location.

Of course, I expect you'll say that ties to Osama aren't the same as ties to Al Queda...

63

Joe, I wouldn't weasel out of a bin laden-al Queda tie, and whats more I don't care to win an argument but know the truth of the matter. I found this about said documents on Wikipedia.

the US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available.

64

Moby Joe, I wouldn't weasel out of a bin laden-al Queda tie...

Sorry, I must have been confusing you with Mumon. ; )

...the US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents,...

That may be a valid point. But if the documents are unreliable, why is the NYT bothering to put a story about them on their front page?

65

Breaking news on the Haggard story:

Christianity Today has put up a story containing an email sent by Pastor Ross Parley to members of New Life Church. It contains the following:

"Since that time, the board of overseers has met with Pastor Ted. It is important for you to know that he confessed to the overseers that some of the accusations against him are true."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/novemberweb-only/144-54.0.html

If this has been going on for three years, this is no mere slip-up. This man has not been "walking in the light" for quite a while. How has he lived with his conscience for all this time? And it wasn't his conscience that finally got to him, it was exposure by the prostitute. How many more years or decades would this have gone on if he hadn't been caught?

Still, Raven is right. In all likelihood, Haggard will be "rehabilitated," will write a best-selling book and evangelicals will go on their merry way.

66

Don't cede any ground abouted alleged feigned outrage on the part of Republicans.

Maybe Rush Limbaugh has been feigning outrage -- I don't listen to him -- but Tony Snow, President Bush, Dick Cheney, and the other grown-ups in the Republican party haven't done so. They have just been pointing out that if Kerry misspoke, it must have been a Freudian slip, because the "botched joke" sure fits in with everything else the Senator has been saying the past two years. Just as damning is the fact that it sure was hard for Senator Kerry to apologize for his remarks.

Matt--I don't think Bush, Snow, Cheney, etc. are feigning outrage, nor am I. I find Kerry's comments outrageous, but sadly not out of character. I do think the Dems outrage with respect to the Foley and Lott matters were little more than the outrage equivalent of crocidile teards. They spent too much time defending Clinton, Robert "KKK" Byrd, Mel Reynolds, and Gerry Studds to think otherwise.

67

Joe, I can only read the NY Times online. Is it the Broad article, because I couldn't find anything about the link?

68

It never ceases to amaze me concerning the ridiculous stereotype of evangelicals: that we are all hateful homophobes who are supposed to eat our own if they're practicing homosexuality, ESPECIALLY if it turns out a "conservative" politician is "outed" from the closet. The expectation? That evangelicals are so single-mindedly hateful and ignorant that we can't see to the real person behind what we consider "sin," and certainly wouldn't vote for, befriend or love *gasp* a GAY person. . .

But then when evangelicals confound their critics, and do what we know is right - forgive and embrace the sinner who [hopefully] repents of his sin [and even if he doesn't] - it's too hard for our critics to admit that maybe - just maybe - they got us all wrong. Nope, easier to just label those evangelicals "hypocrites" and continue to feel smugly self-righteous over all those mind-numbingly stupid Jesus freaks. . .

To the subject of Kerry's comments: I had a short conversation last night with two people: one a political conservative/former military; and the other a Democrat who has not served in the military, but had a friend die in Iraq. Even though we couldn't come to a consensus on the President or politics in general, it wasn't too hard to agree between all three of us that Kerry's comments were ridiculous, and that anyone who insults our troops has no business leading them as Commander in Chief. . . ever.

69

Hey Mumon,

I agree part of the reason for going to Iraq was control of oil.

Another reason was global hegemony. Many prominent members of the administration belong to the Project for the New American Century and they were looking for a reason to invade Iraq when ever they could find an excuse (this is well documented on their website). The hysteria and climate of fear following 911 provided the perfect opportunity.

I wasn't planning on bringing up PNAC thinking I'd be labelled some extreme left-wing moonbat, but it's my impression that many of the posters here are diehard followers that can not change their minds despite overwhelming evidence, so it really doesn't matter. Myself,as I previously stated, I voted for Bush in 2000 and initially supported the Iraq war. I recall telling friends, "just wait tell we get over there-they'll be WMDS all over the place and they'll find them..." As time when on and evidence mounted, I had to change my mind.

Mumon, I think we really are wasting our time here-we are not going to convince anyone and insulting everyone is just pointless. It is kind of educational though-I've rarely encountered such diehard Bush supporters in my every day life. It's interesting hearing their views.
John Wyatt

70

So are you saying, Igraine, that most evangelicals have no problem voting for a gay person? I find that hard to believe.

My problem is not so much that evangelicals will forgive this "sin," but their utter hypocrisy in refusing to forgive those outside their political crowd who also sin (e.g., Clinton).

71

John Wyatt :

Yeah, I know nobody posting here on that side is willing to change their minds; it's too much to ask of shills and their followers locked into their mindset.

But normal people, and people without an axe to grind will chortle heartily at Haggard's latest "admissions."

Evidently, he admitted to buying the meth, and went to the gay male prostitute "for a massage."

Riiiiight.

As somebody snarked in the Kos diary, "Who among us has not bought crystal meth from a paid male prostitute?"

John Avarosis on Americablog had a great bit (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/11/no-nothing-gay-there.html)

entitled, "No, nothing gay there" quoting from a Harper's article on Haggard:

The atrium is a soaring foyer adorned with the flags of the nations and guarded by another bronze warrior angel, a scowling, bearded type with massive biceps and, again, a sword. The angel's pedestal stands at the center of a great, eight-pointed compass laid out in muted red, white, and blue-black stone. Each point directs the eye to a contemporary painting, most depicting gorgeous, muscular men—one is a blacksmith, another is bound, fetish-style, in chains—in various states of undress. My favorite is The Vessel, by Thomas Blackshear, a major figure in the evangelical-art world.[2] Here in the World Prayer Center is a print of The Vessel, a tall, vertical panel of two nude, ample-breasted, white female angels team-pouring an urn of honey onto the shaved head of a naked, olive-skinned man below. The honey drips down over his slab-like pecs and his six-pack abs into the eponymous vessel, which he holds in front of his crotch. But the vessel can't handle that much honey, so the sweetness oozes over the edges and spills down yet another level, presumably onto our heads, drenching us in golden, godly love. Part of what makes Blackshear's work so compelling is precisely its unabashed eroticism; it aims to turn you on, and then to turn that passion toward Jesus.

72

Ex-preacher:

I agree - evangelicals are hypocrites. So are non-evangelicals. We're all fallen, and that's the nature of the beast.

But I think there's one perspective where it makes sense for evangelicals to forgive their own but be less willing to forgive others. I think it has to do with their perception as to whether the party who transgressed has genuinely repented.

My sense is that my evangelical friends (and me, too, for that matter) are less likely to trust Clinton's repentence as genuine.

In like fashion, a person who mistrusts or dislikes evangelicals will tend to view an evangelical's repentence as fake and politically motivated.

So in the end, I don't think it's hypocrisy so much as a lack of trust - both groups tend to distrust the other.

But that's not as much fun as flaming the other side...

73

So are you saying, Igraine, that most evangelicals have no problem voting for a gay person? I find that hard to believe.

I'd vote for an openly gay, pro-life, pro-gun, candidate who supports the Iraq war before I'd vote for John Kerry or even Rudy Guliani, but what are the odds of finding a candidate like that?

74

Unknown P.
I think I could live with my children taking one of your classes. : )

75

Well I say that what Haggard has done here is far, far worse than similar conduct observed amongst hoi polloi. Sure, there's the hypocrisy angle - like the time he said:

"Homosexual activity, like adulterous relationships, is clearly condemned in the Scriptures."

So he makes it real clear where he stands on these things, and where he expects his followers to stand on them, too. And that's what's worse: a leader must lead by example.

Now we have... what? How would you even start to count the number of people he has had authority over as president of the National Association of Evangelicals and founder of New Life Church - there must be hundreds of thousands of members, men and women and children, all tithing, struggling to be better people, and attending to the words of a man who, it now appears, was morally corrupt and unable to control his most base and lustful impulses.

What kind of message does that send the faithful? Seems to me it would sorta say that the holy men of the organization are not to be trusted. That there is nothing about being the big cheese at the top of the church - where you get to drive around in a limo an' stuff and everybody has to stand and clap when you enter a stadium - that there's no spiritual component to it at all. It's just a job. And the person holding that job is...

Nothing special.

That's hundreds of thousands of existential crises exploding and rocking the foundations of a religious empire because Mr. High and Mighty couldn't keep it in his pants. So I say it's worse than when some ordinary schmuck steps out on the wild side.

76

So.......

Anyone heard any good Haggard Evangelical jokes yet?

77

I don't know why the armed service should be above criticism, because they are certainly not above moral corruption. That is obviously what Kerry was saying in the Meet the Press interview. It doesn't help preserve their purity, mission, or dignity, to ignore their faults.

Abu Graib and other military abuses happened because of a lack of accountability, and because servicemen are just human sinners, just like everybody else. It's not an indictment of the nobility of their service to say this is something that happens and we have to protect against it.

78

I don't know why the armed service should be above criticism, because they are certainly not above moral corruption. That is obviously what Kerry was saying in the Meet the Press interview. It doesn't help preserve their purity, mission, or dignity, to ignore their faults.

Thanks, angela, for that fair and honest statement. Sadly, it seems many people think criticism is somehow unpatriotic even when the right to criticize is one of the attributes of freedom (that thing we are willing to fight and die for). Like all rights it comes with a responsibility. John Kerry was doing the responsible thing and should commended for it — not vilified.

Notice how he included himself in his criticsim. Would anyone today be that honest?

79

Patrick (gryph) :

The funniest Ted Haggard jokes come from his own site: http://www.tedhaggard.com/gazette.jsp

[I]it was the boys' father, Marcus Haggard, whose religious experience would change their lives -- one life, especially.
A place of rolling hills and woods, Delphi is a small town on the Wabash River in Indiana that once called itself the "junior pork-packing center of the West."
Marcus and Rachel Haggard fell in love with it while driving through on their honeymoon. It's where the young veterinarian and his wife started a family...
In 1984, five years after starting at Bethany, Ted and Gayle Haggard visited Colorado Springs, where Gayle's father had retired and was leading a small church.
Alone, Ted Haggard took a pup tent, a gallon of water, Scripture cassettes and his Bible to the flank of Pikes Peak...
Haggard had experienced a vision in high school after he was born again.
He said he saw demons hovering over newborn babies at a hospital, waiting to instill in them negative character traits such as hatred, greed, drug use and masturbation.

The jokes write themselves...

80

It is astounding the lengths to which the moonbat trolls here will go to try to defuse the impact of Kerry's gaffe. Between the flaming liberals posing as conservatives who just happen to have seen the wisdom of all the DNC talking points and all the unrelated issues being brought in, it's really comical.

You guys have read too much George Lackoff. I know, all you have to do is control how the debate is framed and you can take all the hayseeds' convictions away from them as easily as snatching candy away from a baby! Don't think of an elephant and what the **** is the matter with Kansas and all that rot...

Anyone care to get back to the subject of this post, or Joe's additional comment about Saddam's impending nuclear capability? Sounds like the Bush lied meme just died an unceremonious death.

81

It is astounding the lengths to which the moonbat trolls here will go to try to defuse the impact of Kerry's gaffe.

No, Cheesehead, you don't seem to get it at all.

We aren't talking about some ex-presidential hopeful who isn't currently running for re-election, a person of not-very-great significance who, in an unfortunate turn of lapsus linguae, uttered a howler.

We're talking about the President of the National Association of Evangelicals and founder of New Life Church, the titular head of Evangelicalism - the very definition of what Evanglical Outpost is supposed to be a promoter for, and we learn that this person is ingesting methamphetamine and obtaining it from his homosexual prostitute lover.

I'd say that sort of thing falls squarely within your baliwick, your particular area of expertise, your weltanshauung, as it were. This little tidbit of news happens, perchance, to affect the very idea of what it is you people have in mind for the best interests of society. Because if your panjandrums are observed to be precisely identical in their value system as the most hedonistic of those in the secular humanist ranks, then I'd say that we have far fewer disagreements than I'd originally thought.

82

Cheesehead :

Kerry's old news. Ted Haggard's the new news.

Who cares that Kerry misspoke in criticizing George W. Bush?

Ted Haggard.

Oh, and where was Saddam going to get the fissionable material again???

And enrich it?

Without that he had no "impending" nuclear capability, and you're lying if you're going to keep up that stupid meme.

83

Raven:

Funny how not only Carter, but "godly" blogger Hugh Hewitt as well as powerline, and Michelle Malkin are silent as churchmice on this, the biggest scandal to rock the fundamentalist world since Jimmy Swaggert.

And Haggard's excuses on this make Bill Clinton's "I didn't inhale" look like the very model of forthrightness. His "I bought it but I threw it away" reminds me of Rodney Dangerfield's famous line, "I'm not addicted to cocaine. I just like how it smells."

84

It's pretty astounding how differently people perceive things. When I read Kerry's testimony about war crimes in Vietnam, I'm struck by his sincerity and courage. To condemn himself in that way, to take public responsibility himself for Abu Grahaib-like atrocities seems to me profoundly Christian and deeply patriotic. Yet you folks read it and are, or at least seem to be, appalled.

Joe, I think you misread him when you present a volunteer army and a professional army as opposite options. He was arguing in favor of the draft -- which gave the US an involuntary, citizen army -- and against what happens to be our current arrangement -- a voluntary, professional army. To my eyes this is straightforward, plain as day, in the same way that his recent jibe at Bush was straightforward and plain as day. To interpret his comments as criticisms of the troops seems to me obviously insincere. And yet..., there you all go.

Re: Haggard, it's not my place to assign him a specific level of hell, as many here seem to have been trying to do. What boggles my mind though is how so many otherwise thoughtful evangelicals could fail to see the obvious writing on the wall: YOU ARE BEING USED BY THE PEOPLE WHO CLAIM TO BE LEADING YOU. The president you overwhelmingly voted for reportedly thinks you're "nuts," and because he knowingly smoked ice and partied with a prostitute for months, while at the same time posing publicly against these activities, your association leader apparently thinks you're dupes. Rush Limbaugh did the same thing when he continually denounced drug addicts while at the same time popping handfuls of oxy daily. And Foley did the same thing when he seduced boys while publicly denouncing adults who seduce boys.

And yet you folks keep on defending them. Again. Again. And again. Apparently right over a cliff. When, I wonder, will you finally say "enough!"?

If only you had a little bit of that Kerry courage your "leaders" unpatriotically mock.

Amy

85

I'm noticing a trend here, it goes something like this:

"Yeah, well, Republicans and Evangelicals do bad things too, so you have no right to criticize!"

I'll let the logic (or lack thereof) of such a statement sink in for a second.

What you should be asking is "Has Joe Carter ever made fun of American troops? Has Joe Carter served in the military?" The answers would be no and yes, respectively. Then you ask, "Does the fact that Ann Coulter (who Joe Carter publically despises) agrees with Joe's point have any bearing on what Joe is trying to say? Does it make his point less valid?" The answer to both would be no.

Having moved passed such childish character attacks, we move on to Kerry. Does the fact that he intended to insult the President and the war to a crowd that he assumed (perhaps rightly so) was predominantly anti-Bush and anti-war excuse the fact that what he ultimately said was a shameless insult directed toward the men and women serving in Iraq? No. Does his comment warrent an apology? Absolutely. Even if he went on to clearify what he actually intended to say, he still owes those brave soldiers a sincere apology. THAT would be the thing for an honorable man to do.

86

Kerry served, was wounded and cares about 2,800 dead men. Bush practically went AOL and care only for riches for his buddies. I pick Kerry. Facts suck, huh

87

The Ted Haggard news is sad and is a tragedy for his wife, family, and church congregation. However, maybe something good will come from it. Perhaps it will be an opportunity for people to learn that the don't need megachurch pastors, James Dobson, or the Family Research Council to tell them what to believe or how to be a true christian. They could learn to cultivate their own faith (without putting down others), read the scriptures, and try to live by Christ's example. I think christ would love everyone and respect them-even if they happen to be "liberal moon-bats" who don't support President Bush and yes he would love the Gay people too. Maybe this news about Ted Haggard is just the beginning, maybe more high profile evangelical figures will be shown to have "feet of clay" It should happen-because the current militaristic, right-wing, partisan, and hypocritical brand of socalled "evangelical christianity" so prominent in our country today, frankly stinks to high heaven. Maybe God is tired of having his name and reputation dragged into the gutter.

John Wyatt

88

FOR THE LAST TIME... KERRY WAS NOT MAKING FUN OF THE TROOPS. IT'S SHEER BLINDNESS TO THINK THAT IT WAS ANYTHING BUT A DUMB JOKE LEVELED AT BUSH.

Alright, now that I've got off my chest, I'll recommend the op-ed piece by Friedman in the Times. Friedman is no Ned Lamont. He supported the war. But if you ask me, he nails it on the head. Again, I'm no liberal, but I'm tired of Republicans pretending that what is going on in Iraq is anything but a enormous disaster. And to think, it was a war we started.

http://eliane.livejournal.com/93297.html

89

Raven: "No, Cheesehead, you don't seem to get it at all.

We aren't talking about some ex-presidential hopeful who isn't currently running for re-election, a person of not-very-great significance who, in an unfortunate turn of lapsus linguae, uttered a howler."

Please explain what anything you have said has to do with Joe's post. Maybe you wish Joe's post was about something else, but it clearly is about Kerry's consistent pattern of slamming the troops, and that especially in time of war. This is the man who was the Dems pick for president two years ago, not some fringe nut-job.

Perhaps if you and Mummy want to talk about Haggard you should go over to Mummy's blog (rated about #11,500 on TTLB last time I looked) and start your discussion over there. If you want to stay here to discuss anything but the anti-American left you may want to look up the definition of troll in your on-line dictionary. Your picture is there.

90

Moby,

Facts don't suck. They are facts. It's like complaining about gravity, why bother?

What does suck is people calling their opinion a fact. Kerry cares about 2,800 dead people and President Bush only cares about rich folks is a fact? Oh dear.

Kerry served is a fact. Kerry was wounded is a fact. President Bush served is a fact.

Thanks to the Democratic party i'm starting to think the Republicans are going to keep the House and the Senate this coming Tuesday.

It seems all but impossible. It just doesn't happen for a President to serve for 8 years and have his party control the House and the Senate for most of that time.

So it shouldn't happen this time either. But with friends like John Kerry, well, it just might.

91

Expreacher said:

"So are you saying, Igraine, that most evangelicals have no problem voting for a gay person? I find that hard to believe."

Hard to believe or not, most evangelicals I know who vote don't really care about a person's private life [sinful or otherwise], as long as he or she can "do the job" so to speak,holds the same positions on important issues, and whatever they're doing is not illegal and/or nonconsensual. It would be a bit hard to vote for anyone completely unstained by any sin, don't you think. . .? Fornication, drug abuse, adultery, theft, wrath, envy, covetousness and so on have been committed again and again by people all over the world - why would you think homosexuality is somehow a "worse" sin than any other?

"My problem is not so much that evangelicals will forgive this "sin," but their utter hypocrisy in refusing to forgive those outside their political crowd who also sin (e.g., Clinton)."

Only the most adament of partisans have not "forgiven" Clinton for his sins - and it certainly isn't just those scary evangelicals who haven't "forgiven" him, either. You're mixing up partisans with evangelicals, who themselves are not necessarily that homogenous, brainwashed, goose-stepping group of Jesus zombies you might think we are. . . ;) That is not to say that I personally don't think there are absolutely legitimate criticisms of Clinton's adminstration and tenure. I also happen to think rational adults should be able to discuss them without fury and/or rancor, but that's just my opinion, of course. . . ;)

92

Its not opinion about the great and sad deepened disparity between the rich and the poor. The tax cut the poor got, for example, was ridicules compared to the rich. Facts are there are many more poor now. You can with a strait face compare military service? Oh well, Kerry isn't really important in this election. Things like exporting torture and starting preemptive wars and using Christians for political gain are just a few more important things to consider.

93

Its not opinion about the great and sad deepened disparity between the rich and the poor. The tax cut the poor got, for example, was ridicules compared to the rich. Facts are there are many more poor now. You can with a strait face compare military service? Oh well, Kerry isn't really important in this election. Things like exporting torture and starting preemptive wars and using Christians for political gain are just a few more important things to consider.

94

Its not opinion about the great and sad deepened disparity between the rich and the poor. The tax cut the poor got, for example, was ridicules compared to the rich. Facts are there are many more poor now. You can with a strait face compare military service? Oh well, Kerry isn't really important in this election. Things like exporting torture and starting preemptive wars and using Christians for political gain are just a few more important things to consider.

95

Its not opinion about the great and sad deepened disparity between the rich and the poor. The tax cut the poor got, for example, was ridicules compared to the rich. Facts are there are many more poor now. You can with a strait face compare military service? Oh well, Kerry isn't really important in this election. Things like exporting torture and starting preemptive wars and using Christians for political gain are just a few more important things to consider.

96

Moby, since you wrote it four times I thought I should probably respond. :)

Its not opinion about the great and sad deepened disparity between the rich and the poor. The tax cut the poor got, for example, was ridicules compared to the rich.

Not sure what you mean by your second sentence. The poor are, well, poor. How much of a tax cut can you give someone who is poor?

The rich on the other hand are rich. So if you give a rich guy a 5% tax cut and a poor guy a 40% tax cut, the Democrats will tell you its a tax cut for the rich. Why? Because the rich guy will get millions of dollars due to his 5% tax cut and the poor guy will get $1,000.00.

Other than giving the richs guys money to the poor guy through the funnel of the government, what do you suggest should happen there?

Those people who make the most money benefit the most from tax cuts.

I do think the President could have made his tax cuts better though. His tax cuts are too progressive. After President Bush's tax cuts, the rich pay a larger percentage of the tax burden then they did under Clinton.

The Republicans need to get rid of the death tax completely, make permanent the capital gains tax cut and lower taxes on business in the United States.

If you care a lot about the poor you should be very happy with Bush. Employment in the United States is over 95%!!

May God Bless President George W. Bush.

97

Hi Eric and Lisa,
I had trouble with my post button. : )

I'm done debating for the time, its very late. Are the poor really better off though? I'v read much that would say otherwise. Thanks for your responses,

98

Isn’t anyone going to comment on Ted Haggard? If this guy can be held up as a model of Christian leadership, but consort with prostitutes and buy drugs, why on earth should I feel bad for occasionally having lustful thoughts, or for getting angry sometimes? I mean, I’m no paragon of holiness, but I’ve never even MET a prostitute. And I wouldn’t know how to buy drugs if you told me to.

99

I don't think you understand evangelical Christianity, John M. A True Christian can use drugs, have gay sex (or a massage), steal, lie, molest children and murder millions as long as, at the end of the day, he believes the right things about Jesus and prays the right prayers. All sins will be forgiven and he will live in paradise forever.

On the other hand, someone like you or Anne Frank who lives a basically decent life will burn in hell forever because you didn't believe the right things about Jesus.

100

David N.:

. Does the fact that he intended to insult the President and the war to a crowd that he assumed (perhaps rightly so) was predominantly anti-Bush and anti-war excuse the fact that what he ultimately said was a shameless insult directed toward the men and women serving in Iraq? No.

Does the fact that Kerry mis-spoke pale in comparison to the fact that supporters of the current Republican regime have failed our troops, not supplied enough of them adequately or equipped them adequately, and isn't Kerry's remark negligible in light of George W. Bush's "jokes" about not being able to find the "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq while our troops were dying and being maimed over there?

Yes.

Is the rage manufactured?

Obviously.

Cheesehead:

The topic was obviously manufactured outrages, and as I said, whatever Kerry said, it certainly doesn't compare the the fact that righties are knowingly or unknowingly being taken by frauds like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Haggard.

And where's the uranium enrichment capability again? Where's the fissionable material?

101

Bush just humiliated our troops! "Only way to win is to leave." Fox news is going to grind this one into the ground.

102

From AP: "The Rev. Ted Haggard agreed to resign as leader of the New Life Church after its independent investigative board recommended removal, saying he was guilty "of sexually immoral conduct." "

103

Hey, “ex-preacher”, you missed the point of my Haggard comment entirely. I’m not questioning whether he’s SAVED. As you say, however mockingly, one who knows the right things about Jesus is saved no matter what his actions. My question is whether he should be a LEADER. Being saved is not enough to be a leader. I’m not questioning evangelical doctrine, just evangelical taste.

104

With all the news about Kerry and Haggard I forgot all about the number of US troops who died in Iraq last month. Since you can quote Kerry in detail that goes back to the early 70s, and so must have exceptional memories, would you please remind me?

At the end of the day, no matter how you try to rationalize things, US soldiers are dying today in Iraq and Afghanistan because of your politics, not Kerry's.

With this joke brouhaha, you're sidestepping your moral responsibility. Again. Next thing you know, you'll start projecting the blame on immigrants and gays. Again.

Even in pagan days, leaders who were overcome by pride were at least decent enough to gauge their eyes out. But these folks you want us to support -- they're utterly shameless.

Has the church really drifted so far from Christ that it has lost ALL humility?

105

You God haters are so full of it. (I've had many, many ideas of just what "it" is, not one of them is pleasant.) You're rejoicing so much over Haggard's sins because in your twisted little minds, it somehow proves that everything he taught is wrong, and by extension, all of Christianity and God is wrong.

That's pure B.S. All it proves is that Haggard is a sinner and a hypocrite. Nothing more. The Bible has this to say about the human condition, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," (Romans 3:23) That includes Ted Haggard, Ed Heckman, Joe Carter, Mumon, Boonton, ex-preacher, and every single "hero of faith" mentioned in the Bible (other than Jesus who was God himself). Yes Ted Haggard sinned. Big friggin' deal. He's paying the price for it too.

But to think that this somehow proves that what he said against gay marriage was all a lie? You're out of your cotton pickin' minds!

Let's say Person A tells Person B not to play in the street because it's stupid and he could get hit by a car. Person B then passes that message on to other people. Somewhere down the road Person B gets an attack of the stupids, plays in the street and gets hit by a car. Person B would then rightly be exposed as a hypocrite because his words did not match his actions. Does that mean that Person A is a hypocrite? No. Does that mean that the advice to never play in the street is wrong? Absolutely not! In fact, Person B proved the point!

Yes Ted Haggard had an attack of the stupids. That does not make God a hypocrite or evil. Nor does it make same sex marriage any less stupid of an idea.

106

Hi Amy. I'd like to say that it's refreshing and welcome that you've elected to join the ongoing exchange of opinion here at EO. Since you appear to be new to the forum, I'd like to give you a general overview of what you can expect.

While we haven't seen him in a while, Gordon Mullings usually posts 10,000 words at a time, few of which are meaningful and three-quarters of which are copied and pasted from previous comments. Tedium, redefined.

You can always count on a bracing dose of reason and insight from ex-preacher. I don't know why any of us who have immunity come here, except that if this were one of those "Night of the Living Dead" movies, I would occasionally want to to watch the zombies and study them. I think it's something like that.

You can help us try to board the windows up.

Every now and then Joe will stop in and address the gallery. We call such events, the "Prime Minister's March of the Non-Sequiturs."

From what I've read here, it appears that Christian Evangelicalism requires the adherent to buy into a basic set of suppositions that are bizarre and disturbing, to say the least. Apparently, Socrates, Ghandi, and Bertrand Russell are currently burning in Hell. Homosexuality is the worst sin imaginable. All morality flows from the Bible. Children should be homeschooled and taught that the world is 6,000 years old. There's no such thing as evolution. A human being achieves full personhood at conception. And being a Christian means that one must be a Republican and worship George W. Bush.

It must be a very strange place to live.

107

Ed:

That's pure B.S. All it proves is that Haggard is a sinner and a hypocrite. Nothing more. The Bible has this to say about the human condition, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," (Romans 3:23) That includes Ted Haggard, Ed Heckman, Joe Carter, Mumon, Boonton, ex-preacher, and every single "hero of faith" mentioned in the Bible (other than Jesus who was God himself).

Your deity was created by your mind, although you use the help of others' creations of their minds to continue to maintain the facade. So I've "sinned and fallen short" against a creation of your mind, an idol. Just like Ted Haggard's idol.

You can quote your idol all you want, but you and Ted Haggard and Joe Carter are still practicing idolatry, the idolatry of ideas created in your mind.

The fact is, your idol does not, cannot and must not ever be considered by anyone as making demands contingent on them: that is tyranny, it is an assault on freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, and is precisely why Ted Haggard, James Dobson, their fellow travelers and their ilk are evil.

It is crystal clear from the videos making the rounds on youtube of Haggard that he - the "preacer in the round" - put himself in the place of a deity, spoke in the name of a deity, and scarfed up people's hard earned money in the name of a deity.

It is indeed a big deal, but much much bigger than "gay marriage."

And the tin-plated followers of Haggard, and the wannabe John Hagees and Adrian Rodgers, and Hugh Hewitts and all their ilk and those who quote scripture claiming "this is what god says" are in exactly the same boat and position: they are blasphemers, they are hypocrites, they are idolaters.

And that - not the gay marriage issue - is why Haggard's important: he shows the paucity of spirituality of this megachurch idolatry.

108

I'd like to thank Joe for giving this free forum to debate, and I am finished. A couple things though. One, the Haggert thing isn't a indictment on Christianity. The things that Jesus warned his followers about the future was wolves in sheep clothing, (NOT GAY MARRIAGE). I like ex-preachers thoughts too, but his Anne Frank analogy doesn't fit just right. Christians aren't to judge, and are to love one another. Her, fate one and all would hope is heaven.