Larry Thurlow (of that group of dishonorable partisans not even worthy of my showering with expletives deleted, who have sold out the honor of themselves and their country to help a failing President who himself deserted from the comparatively cushy National Guard Service his well-connected Poppy got him in order to avoid service in Vietnam) seems to have forgotten something fundamental according to this little note in this week's Pravda visit.
Mr. Thurlow, who, frankly, along with Chuck Colson/Nixon Plumbers associate John O'Neill and some other people, lacks sufficient personal honor to deserve the oxygen they waste by continuing to breathe it, seems to have forgotten his own service records,, which, contrary to rather transparent lies he is willing to spout as part of Karl Rove's latest orchestrated dirty tricks campaign, show that contrary to his current statements that Lt. J.G. Kerry was not under hostile fire during a Swift Boat incident in 1969, in fact at the time Thurlow said he was under hostile fire.
This is all perfectly consistent of course; a lengthy piece in yesterday's New York Times (dead tree print edition) discusses the web of intrigue, all of which leads back to Texas, George W. Bush himself and Karl Rove, that is, of course, behind the latest rather bizarre attempts to smear Senator Kerry's Vietnam record. I say bizarre because this shows a peculiar act of August desperation: you'd think a man who pulled strings to get a cushy Air Guard spot and then abused it by missing a mandatory drug test and then went AWOL for a year would not want to make an issue of anything done by the other guy who, no matter what anyone says, volunteered to serve in combat.
But hey, I guess its the same kind of hubris that our nation can't get through its head: we just have no idea how vulnerable this "man" has made this nation, be it to attacks from terrorists, or the defeat of our mighty professional basketball team by not merely our own colonies, but now by former Soviet colony, Lithuania.
This is what I fail to understand, regardless of the fact that Senator Kerry isn't warm, fuzzy or Southern enough to have opened up a huge electoral lead: George W. Bush is not merely a loser, he has turned everything he has ever touched to crap, while managing to suck out gains for himself. He has done the same thing for this nation. And yet, just because he is an immature braggart who can't speak our language, a significant part of our country (admittedly at the direction of a bought and paid for media) think he is a "strong leader".
Forget the bright/not bright thing; though the man's SAT score was hundreds of points less than my own, it happened to be around 100 points higher than Al Gore's. Intelligence is not the issue. Competence is the issue. Why are we even having a debate about who is a better candidate when one of the candidates is unquestionably experienced, competent and professional (albeit not all that warm and fuzzy... or Southern), and the other has proven he is simply incapable of competently performing his office? Forget native intelligence: George W. Bush is the first and only man ever to hold the Presidency who was simply, be it by temperament, character or intellect, not up to the job. And yet, he is getting a pass on this.
I don't know. As I plan to go jogging here in my undisclosed location, I understand that Senator Kerry is nearby raising $25,000 a plate at the Sex & the City producer's house; I'll try to give him a high five if I see him. Hopefully he'll be less disruptive of the neighborhood than when our 42nd President was around. Say what you will about Mr. Clinton: I don't recall him trying to cast doubt on Poppy Bush's or Bob Dole's WWII record of heroism. But then, 1992 seems to hearken (or Harkin!) back to an era when cowards had enough honor not to try to besmirch heroes.
The article didn't mention Arvidas Sabonis, but I bet he played. He came to the NBA when he was about 30 and had knee problems, and became one of the better centers anyway. In his prime he was a Soviet and was only seen in international competitions, but I think he was one of the 5 best centers of all time.
Serbia is another tiny country with a big basketball presence. If Yugoslavia hadn't split they'd be even stronger.
Posted by Zizka at August 21, 2004 11:17 PM
Not that it matters but Al Gore scored in the 700s on his math SAT. Bush scored about 630--respectable, but lower than Gore's.
I'm positive his cume was higher than Bush's.
Posted by Diana at August 22, 2004 03:23 PM
Who's Al Gore?
Posted by Jimbo Jones at August 22, 2004 03:38 PM
Diana is correct! Bush scored a 'respectable" 1205, Gore, a more respectable 1355. (My own score, though substantially higher than both, was not good enough to get me into either Harvard or Yale absent a parent who was at least a member of Congress.)
I see no mention of Sabonis playing for the Litvaks this round. Lithuania is so deep, they really don't need him. While the USA is still the "favorite" for the gold medal, if Team USA were to win it with two first round losses, such a medal would have to be regarded with some suspicion.
Both Puerto Rico and Lithuania have advanced to the medal round, so...
And how 'bout that Iraqi soccer team? I can see the next Bush-Cheney ad copy being written now, especially the Gold Medal version as the Iraqi team wins the gold medal, and the Iraqi flag is raised while the Star Spangled Banner and Yellow rose of Texas are played.
Posted by the talking dog at August 22, 2004 07:31 PM
Sabonis is still good enough for the NBA, but not good enough for Lithuania. Portland has been hoping he'd un-retire.
Posted by Zizka at August 22, 2004 11:50 PM
What proof do we have that Bush, not a surrogate, took that test?
Posted by Cassius Chaerea at August 23, 2004 07:50 AM