Why is Kerry trailing?

[Moneyguy1]

And of course, Navy supply ships were, as we all know, rarely sunk........

AS for the "war on terrorism" (and this will get the hackles up on some)....The current crop of leaders showcase the lack of further on shore attacks as proof they are doing quite well.

Couldn't the other side claim there were no further attacks on their watch from 1993 to 2001? Wasn't that proof of their program's effectiveness?

Both claims are equally valid (or invalid). One cannot prove an unprovable.

I would not care if Gore were Prez or Bush, but with the current world situation, why is the president not in Washington working and why is he "out on a bus" stomping through the Ohio area? Like I said, I would feel this way no matter who was at the helm.

[Bleyseng]

GW always seems to have other things to do besides run the country. Pre 9/11 he was so involved in "other" things that he ignored the NSG/CIA pleas to take action on Al Queda.
Now he is too busy riding around on buses to finish the tasks at hand, namely Afghanistan and Iraq. Remember, we have lots of people in both countries!

The GOPs are dead wrong for bashing Kerrys service record. Who cares if later on he tossed his medal/ribbons in the anti war movement. Atleast he wasnt tossing his cookies from being drunk all the time and getting a DUI!

its a sad joke, folks.

Geoff

[350HP930]

Who cares if bush is busy propagandizing from a bus.

The real movers and shakers like cheyney and rumsfeld are busy in their offices hard at work destroying our country and others for the profits of their benefactors.

[SRISER]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
And of course, Navy supply ships were, as we all know, rarely sunk........

Supply ships are typically the first thing to be targeted. They are the lifeline of the fleet. You win a war faster by cutting logistics than you do by sinking warships. Hence the reason why supply ships usually have significant warship escorts.

That being said, we owned the sea lanes in VN so there was almost zero danger for any large naval vessel.

[Moneyguy1]

SRISER:

Ummmm First, the comment was tongue in cheek

Second, it was in reference to Nixon in World War II since I had pointed out he served in the Pacific and someone said something to the tune of "yeah, but on a supply ship".

I hope that clarifies things. Certainly didn't mean to mislead.