Join or sign in Register for your free TechRepublic membership or if you are already a member, sign in using your preferred method below. Use Your Email Use FacebookUse Linkedin

Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

Locked

I am firmly in the ABB camp (anybody but Bush). I wish I had a compelling reason to vote Democratic this year – oh how I wish Kerry were a charismatic, likeable, appealing kind of leader.

Instead I’m relying on a time-honored rule in American politics: If things aren’t going well, throw the bums out and start all over with new blood.

What is the exit strategy for Iraq? There isn’t one. What justification does the current administration have for arresting people who legally carry anti-Bush signs in public demonstrations of their First Amendment rights? There isn’t any. In what ways is my life better off because we invaded Iraq and kicked Hussein out of power? None whatsoever. What a different world it would be if we had focused on catching Bin Laden instead…

I imagine Mr. Bush is a decent enough man, but he has utterly failed to convince me that he is the right person to lead this country for four more years. Mr. Kerry can’t do any worse.

Topic

This gets my vote as the best “anti-Bush” message. . . . .

In reply to Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

.
…that I’ve ever seen posted on TR, not because I agree with the reasons, but because it doesn’t demonize President Bush in the normal, partisan, and unjustified way.

Agree with the president or not, that’s all fine and dandy, but “Mr. Bush is a decent enough man”, as fasthands suggests, “but he has utterly failed to convince me (him)……” he goes on to say.

I can honestly say that I can’t recall a single anti-Bush or pro-Kerry message that acknowledged President Bush as a “decent enough man”, which he certainly is.

Okay, enough of the “sucking up”. On to your “reasons”

Yes, there is – and always has been – an exit strategy for Iraq. There has been no specific “time-table” to withdraw troops, but there has indeed been a very well thought-out and sensible exit strategy. To say otherwise is to just buy into the political platitudes that are being repeated over and over again. If you ask me to articulate that “exit strategy”, I’ll be happy to. But think about it an a reasonable way, stay informed as to what is really going on – without the usual political rhetoric, and the “strategy” becomes obvious.

You ask, “What justification does the current administration have for arresting people who legally carry anti-Bush signs in public demonstrations?” Well, there would be no justification for such a thing – but that has never happened. First of all, the “Bush administration” can’t arrest anyone. (Yes, the Justice Department is the law-enforcement arm of the White House, but they don’t “arrest” demonstrators.) Anyway, people aren’t arrested for carrying signs. However, people carrying signs might be breaking some other civil or disturbance laws, and the local police – who have nothing to do with the current administration – might make arrests if those local laws are violated. But to suggest that people are arrested for simply carrying signs isn’t true.

There’s ALWAYS “the rest of the story” that’s oftentimes overlooked and/or not reported. Besides, local police departments – the ones doing the “arrresting” – have Democrat Party leanings just as much as Republican Party leanings. The Fraternal Order of Police did indeed endorse candidate Bush in 2000, but they also endorsed candidate Clinton both times he ran. (I don’t know if they’ve endorsed either candidate in 2004.) But police officers don’t arrest people for carrying signs; they arrest people who break the local laws that they’re obligated to enforce.

Is your “way of life better off because we invaded Iraq”? Well, probably not. But there are millions of Iraqis who now have hope for a better way of life. I believe the world, as a whole, is safer without Saddam than it was with Saddam. And I think that Iraq now holds the possibility to be the impetus for democratic reform being brought to a region that has known nothing but oppression and hostility for hundreds of years.

But If you want to vote for a guy who you expect to take responsibility for you, personally, instead of expecting that “better way of life” coming as a result of individual initiative, then John Kerry’s certainly your guy.

And what makes you think that the “powers that be”, the ones in the trenches, have “lost focus” on catching bin Laden? Don’t you believe that there are thousands of people – right now – whose only “focus” is to capture bin Laden? If bin Laden is indeed in Pakistan, for example, as is often rumored, what do you want? Do you want a “full scale” invasion of Pakistan, searching house-to-house for one guy? Do you really want to ignite that powder keg? Rest assured, they’re doing everything they can to get bin Laden. And just because this administration can do two (or more) things at once, doesn’t mean that full attention isn’t being given to both (all).

Mr. Kerry, you say, can’t do any worse? Oh yes he can.

Please explain

In reply to This gets my vote as the best “anti-Bush” message. . . . .

Can you please explain in detail what this administration’s exit plan for Iraq actually is?

It’s not that Bush Administration itself can arrest protesters, but it has happened (I’ve seen reports on television and newspapers). In some ocasion they are simply forced to move to a bay area or someplace where they can hardly be seen. Here is an examples:

http://www.sptimes.com/News/060801/Opinion/Foul_call_at_Legends.shtml

Transcript From Bush Speech on American Strategy in Iraq

In reply to Please explain

.
I’ll let President Bush speak for himself.

As I’m sure you’ve neither read nor heard this speech before, in full or in part, please read it carefully – and don’t overlook that it covers five Web pages.

Contrast to John Kerry who has ONLY said he’ll do it better, but never says what “better” is; and that he’ll get other nations, including France, to send troops, even though the Frencs said, no they won’t.

——————–

And having disruptive protestors “removed” isn’t the same as “arresting” them, which has been asserted. I still challenge that statement – the one that said the administration had them “arrested”. To that I say prove it or retract it. (Those are the kinds of “lies” that otherwise intelligent people, for some reason, choose to believe.)

Ah! That is the difference

In reply to This gets my vote as the best “anti-Bush” message. . . . .

Max,

I think you have discovered our difference on GWB.
Where you see him as a decent and honorable man, I see something very different.

I see the guy who sits in the cube across from you and plots ways to steal your ideas and present them to management.

I see the guy who steals your study notes the night before final exams.

Between George W. Bush, Dick Chenney, John Ashcroft, and Karl Rove, I don’t see even 1 ounce of decency, honesty, or integrity.

I would not trust any of them with my life.

If for some reason I were to meet GWB in person, I would not shake hands with him. Not out of disrespect, but because I would not trust that I would get my hand back.

I see an administration working to restrict personal liberties, and impoverish the middle class.

I look at Bush Administration policies and programs and see the hastening of the downfall of America.

Patriot Act:
Good idea if you are a law abiding sheep.
Bad idea if you are a free thinker who does not fall in step with the administration.

Health Care Savings accounts:
Good idea if you are rich.
Bad idea if you make less than $80,000 a year.

Charter Schools and related education programs:
Good if you can afford to live in the better areas of town.
Bad idea if you have to live in low cost housing and can’t afford to transport your children to another school.

New Economy:
Good idea if you own a business.
Bad idea if you are a worker who is not able to earn a college degree.

As to GWB’s speech to the Army War College, our actions as a nation HAVE made us a target for the terrorists.

One last thing, how can GWB claim to be campaigning on hope for America when he uses FEAR to inspire the faithful?

Chas

I think this is one of the. . . . .

In reply to Ah! That is the difference

.
…..saddest messages I’ve ever read.

Not that I agree with it, as I don’t, but to see how so much contempt can reside in, and poison one person’s heart.

I have tried

In reply to I think this is one of the. . . . .

Max,

I have tried to open my mind and my heart and listen for a positive hopeful message from GWB.

I just don’t hear anything that leads me to believe that GWB is interested in doing anything positive for the average American.

Right now, every speech and every action from Bush and his administration only strengthens my belief that the US cannot survive another 4 years of this administration.

Chas

I’m with you

In reply to I have tried

I understand how you feel Chas. Contrary to what some people might think, I have given the administration every chance to make me believe they are doing a good job and failed just about every single on them. Four years is all it took for them to mess us up. I can’t even imagine what they would do in another four years.

Common American

In reply to I have tried

Chas

I don’t know how many small business owners you know, but I’ll give you an example of how the Bush tax cut has helped two friends. One owns a chain of three dry cleaners, his personnel income tax was 750,000 during the last year of Clinton. After paying expenses he made 68,000 of that 750,000. While under Clinton he had to work 60 hours a week consistantly. The Bush tax cuts enabled him to expand his business by upgrading equipment, hire a new employee and provide insurance for employees. He was also able to cut 10 hours off his work week and spend more time with his family. My second friend is a doctor. The last year of Clinton she made approximately 850,000 and got to bring home 200,000 after paying expenses and taxes. Don’t get me wrong she liked bringing home 200,000 but she was also able to bring home more money and hire another staff member with the Bush tax cuts. Did the Bush tax cuts help me personnaly no, but when I see small business hiring new employees, getting insurance, and getting more personnel income I’m all for the tax cuts.

I have the ultimate answer on Bush and Kerry..

In reply to Ah! That is the difference

THEY BOTH SUCK.

the end.

But I have the correct answer

In reply to I have the ultimate answer on Bush and Kerry..

.
Only Kerry sucks.

The real end.

enough chest beating

In reply to But I have the correct answer

Kerry represents interests that go far beyond Iraq And Haliburtons bottom line. Kerry actually agrees with the military commanders in terms of obeyance and the surrender of authority to the Iraqi government. America has policy people who are non-partisan which means they work for the taxpayers not Kerry or Bush. America is mired in pro oil pro military and needs to reset it’s priority to prosperity and the development of technologies which are sustainable and noble to strive for. When NAS meant something America achieved huge leaps in modernization towards enabling technologies and the betterment of mankind why are we not still following that course of direction and even better why dont we invite the rest of the planet this time as we are all shareholders in the big blue marble.

Idiots

In reply to enough chest beating

You can’t work for the betterment of the mankind when idiots will walk into schools and kill innocent children. You can’t work for betterment when idiots fly airplanes into buildings. You can’t work for betterment when idiots don’t have enough self respect than to blow themselves up while trying and or succeeding to kill others. You can’t work for betterment when idiots cut off heads of innocent personnel trying to make life better for others in liberated countries.

Big Oil Not Just American

In reply to enough chest beating

First, if the President was controlling big oil so much, he is failing miserably in doing so. The high oil prices are worldwide and are being used against him in the election. If he controlled them so deviously, he’d lower them until the election was over. Furthermore, the very people we supposedly should consult and include (French, Germans, Russians) has their hands in Saddam’s oil pie and were making money under the table going around the sanctions they put in place! Yes, oil surely is the bottom line in Iraq. It is THEIR bottom line, not ours.

Wake up!

In reply to Ah! That is the difference

Please wake up! We were a target well before Bush became president. I guess you forgot that the 1st bombing of the WTC and the bombing of the Cole happend during the Clinton years.

Protesters 1st Amendment Rights

In reply to This gets my vote as the best “anti-Bush” message. . . . .

Max, Here are a couple of links detailing the charges of violations of free speech rights by the Secret Service, which I believe answers to the administration. The ACLU is involved and I don’t think they would be if there weren’t some teeth to the accusations.

ACLU: Anti-Bush Protesters Exiled to Distant Zones
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96474,00.html

Secret Service Ordered Local Police to Restrict Anti-Bush Protesters at Rallies,
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=13699&c=86

Note these two paragraphs from the second story:
“According to ACLU legal papers, local police, acting at the direction of the Secret Service, violated the rights of protesters in two ways: people expressing views critical of the government were moved further away from public officials while those with pro-government views were allowed to remain closer; or everyone expressing a view was herded into what is commonly known as a ?protest zone,? leaving those who merely observe, but express no view, to remain closer.

Security is not at issue, the ACLU noted, because anyone intent on harming officials would simply carry a sign with a supportive message or no sign at all. ?The individuals we are talking about didn?t pose a security threat; they posed a political threat,? Walczak said.”

Any comments?

Some comments

In reply to Protesters 1st Amendment Rights

.
I’ll agree with you that, on the surface, this sounds very heavy-handed. I’ll also agree with you that I’m not crazy about it (for a number of reasons), and I’d be the first in line to defend any person’s right to speak out against the government. However, I still contend that there’s a “rest of the story” that should be considered. I would also suggest that a person’s right to free speech is not unlimited. When that “free speech” interferes with another’s rights, it’s gone too far.

Would you support a group of people, for example, carrying signs and protesting against something right in the middle of the Interstate highway going through your city, resulting in obstructing the flow of traffic? Of course not; I think we’d both agree that such people would be going too far.

Whether it’s a John Kerry appearance, a George Bush appearance, or anyone else, if the protestors disrupt the rights – or safety – of others, then they could be – and in some cases, should be – removed. And if they don’t go willingly, they subject themselves to arrest.

Similar things have happened at John Kerry (D) events:

At the rally held for John Kerry in downtown Flagstaff, three protestors were arrested (Anarchists? I’m sure they deserved it):

http://www.phoenixanarchist.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=273&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

On the last day of the Democratic convention in Boston, protestors were arrested:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/30/1513243

At the 2000 Democrat convention, protestors were arrested:

http://www.alternet.org/story/9639

Similar things have happened at Senator Diane Feinstein’s (D) office.

http://www.kron.com/Global/story.asp?S=968690&nav=5D7iBjZF

Protestors (probably Rs) have been arrested at abortion clinics:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0%2C1282%2C-4213533%2C00.html

Protestors (probably Ds) have been arrested for blocking access to military bases:

http://www.kcrg.com/article.aspx?art_id=43847&cat_id=123

Anti-fur protestors (probably Ds) have been arrested:

http://www.indybay.org/archives/archive_by_id.php?category_id=12&id=1058

Should these “free speech” protestors be forced to stay back from the president, or Senator Kerry, or whomever? Absolutely. I remember how devastated I felt (as a teenager in 1968) when Robert Kennedy was killed – at close range – by a loony tune. The President and presidential candidates have a right to remain safe from any danger, whether that “danger” is real or perceived; the citizens using the roads have a right to move about their business unencumbered; and the local police have the right – and an obligation – to keep visiting candidates safe, not to mention protect themselves if the free-speech protestors get too rowdy.

Yes, most of the stories we see are about Democrats being arrested for such things. Does that mean that Democrats are being targeted while Republicans are given a free pass? Of course not. It means that the typical sign-carrying, free-speech, protestor is a Democrat. That’s a Democrat tactic; Republicans, as a rule, just don’t march up and down the street, carrying signs, shouting at people, disrupting various aspects of society, and generally being a real pain in the butt. I guess they’re too busy accepting self-responsibility, and just getting on with their lives. They have better things to do than carry signs and shout at people.

Obstructing the flow of traffic????

In reply to Some comments

Max, you have utterly overwhelmed me with input, and for that I thank you. But I think the nub of the issues with the Secret Service story is that the protesters had valid tickets to the events, they simply held up placards with anti-Bush sentiments on them. They did not at any time obstruct traffic.

So, whilst I agree whole-heartedly that any protesters on any side of any issue who obstruct traffic are in the wrong, I still say that removing someone from an event just to keep the photo-op’ landscape pure is an aberration. If I were the sitting President, I’d welcome those people, acknowledge them, and by acknowledging them take some of the wind out of their sales. “Yeah, there were a few with ‘hate me’ signs, but the rest of the crowd loved me.'”

All that said, your array of links all should be required reading for anyone seriously interested in politics in this country. Hell maybe you should go into politics yourself! Or political consulting…. LOL

fasthands – Yea, I know, but my answer is this

In reply to Obstructing the flow of traffic????

.
Yea, I realize that I didn’t directly address that particular issue, but I suppose I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the Secret Service and local police – at least more than I’m willing to give the same benefit to the media who covered and/or reported the story.

I’ll admit, that as you presented the story, it looks questionable. But I also think there’s probably more to this than meets the eye, and that they probably had good reason for their actions. I could be wrong, of course, but I would be inclined to question the “selective” reporting of the story, whereas others would question the Secret Service (or whomever pulled their strings).

And even if it was just to keep the “vocal opposition” out of ear-shot of the rest of the crowd, I’d still not have a problem with it. While I would like to see politicians (of both parties) speak to “opposition” audiences more than they do, I understand the sentiment of wanting to have the optimal environment to speak to the ones who really want to listen – without having to shout over the ones who only want to be heard.

Regardless, it’s not squelching anyone’s freedom of speech. It’s just exercising their right to avoid hearing it. And after all, just because a person does indeed have the freedom to speak out, it doesn’t mean we have to force people to listen if they don’t want to.

As for me going into politics, I’d never get elected. I’m too “bluntly” honest. “Mr. Edison, someone would ask me, “What will you do for me if I vote for you?” “Not a damn thing”, I would say. “I will try to roll back as many government social programs as possible, because I think it’s unfair to take the personal property (i.e. money) of one citizen, just to give it to you because you don’t want to take personal responsibility for your own life. So I would get the government out of your way so you can start doing for yourself.” (Then I’d find myself on the losing end of a landslide.)

You would have my vote

In reply to fasthands – Yea, I know, but my answer is this

I wish more politicians had the same attitude expressed in your last paragraph. You are right, though, they would not get elected. Too many people wanting handouts. Although I am voting for Bush, I am still disappointed with him and his handouts, such as “No Child Left Behind”, the Medicare Prescription Benefit, and the increased child tax credit. Kerry would probably give away much more of my hard earned tax money, and has already said so in his socialized medicine plan.

Flow of Traffic

In reply to Obstructing the flow of traffic????

Fast

The guy I mentioned earlier had a ticket to the Ohio town hall meeting. He was still taken out by a Secret Service detail.

No difference

In reply to Protesters 1st Amendment Rights

The same thing was done at Democratic events. CNN, MSNBC and Fox all showed the man being taken from a town hall meeting in Ohio because the man kept asking Kerry why he voted for the 87 billion before he voted against it.

Some additional reasons to vote for Kerry

In reply to Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

HEALTH CARE

1. Kerry and Edwards have a plan to address the soaring cost of health care that will cut premiums by up to $1,000 and help insure an additional 27 million Americans who don’t have health coverage.

2. They will put medical decisions in the hands of doctors and their patients and stop bureaucrats who nothing about medicine from making life and death decisions.

3. Unlike Bush’s Medicare prescription drug plan that only gives money to pharmaceutical companies, the Kerry-Edwards plan will provide prescription drug relief that allows Americans the discounts available in Canada.

4. Kerry and Edwards believe that every American deserves the same quality of care that members of Congress receive and will allow every American to enroll in that system.

5. The Kerry-Edwards plan gives tax cuts to small businesses to help them cover their workers.

IRAQ

1. Kerry has a plan to internationalize the security and reconstruction effort by making Iraq part of NATO’s global mission and by involving allies in rebuilding the country, providing troops and financial commitments.

2. He will implement an international effort to coordinate reconstruction efforts, draft the national constitution, and organize elections.

3. Under Kerry, we will work with allies to forgive Iraq’s multi-billion dollar debts.

4. Kerry will convene a regional conference with Iraq’s neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq’s borders and non-interference in Iraq’s internal affairs.

5. Kerry will launch a massive training effort to build a professional Iraqi security force, including a major role for NATO. This is not a task for America alone; we must join as a partner with other nations.

JOBS

1. Kerry and Edwards have a plan to help create millions of high-paying jobs. America’s dynamic entrepreneurs and talented workers are capable of creating millions of jobs each year. It happened before: in Clinton’s first term the economy created more than 11 million new jobs. And with the Kerry-Edwards plan to put the right policies in place we can do it again.

2. For Kerry and Edwards, making America more competitive means investing in more jobs at higher wages.

3. Kerry has a plan to jumpstart job growth right now. This includes a New Jobs Tax Credit, which would provide a payroll tax holiday for new hires in manufacturing, other businesses affected by outsourcing, and small businesses.

4. His plan would end tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas and use the savings to cut the corporate rate by 5 percent, providing a tax cut for 99 percent of taxpaying corporations.

5. Kerry would make America more competitive by reducing the burden on the middle class. He would cut the deficit in half in the first Kerry term as president, cut health care premiums by up to $1,000 a year, and move America towards energy independence to bring down energy costs.

Sorry aldanatech,

In reply to Some additional reasons to vote for Kerry

But what Kerry says it’s UTOPIA. Yes, I agree, there are great intentions, but well, from where I lived some time ago, every 4 years (elections time), I have heard so many and such alike promises, I would stay a day on the net, 25 out of 24, and I would not finish writing them down. In the end, what happened? NOTHING! They got elected, and they, as usual, forgot about what they promised. I hope you’ll experience something better, for your own sake.

What you present here, although I have no clue about what/how politics goes in US, 4 years, even 8 (if he gets lucky), are not enough to do the things he says. It is not only “the chef will”, it is also the ?REST? who play(s) a major part in this kind of game. I hope you know that better than me ;).

My two cents opinion is this one: if I’d have to choose between one who say that will do 1000 things, and one who’d say he’ll do 3 things, well, I incline to vote for the last one. It is so hard to find a person (in politics) who really ended one little tiny thing.

And, no hard feelings, but the same thing I’d say about any politician. Stop talking, start acting! would be my moto for them. I want to see someone finally gets a decission, and follow it up to its end!

I understand

In reply to Sorry aldanatech,

Many people used to think Bush would make one heck of a president when they voted for him, and he turned out the be a total bust. Nobody can warrant 100% for sure that Kerry will fulfill each and every one of his campaign promises (after all, he is a politician), but we already know what Bush is capable of as a president and I personally don’t want to see any more of it. On the other hand I can say that at the very least, Kerry shows that he has a better understanding of what is going on and is more capable of suggestion solutions than Bush. That alone would be reason enough to vote for Kerry instead of Bush.

someone who got a decission and followed it up to its end…..

In reply to Sorry aldanatech,

Adolf Hitler!

Are you serious

In reply to Some additional reasons to vote for Kerry

1. Healthcare
Kerry wants universal social healthcare. Any government run program is inherently worse than a free market-based program. If you think healthcare is difficult and inefficient now, just wait. Oh and he says that you will be able to control it so it wont become inefficient, name a government program where your opinion will make things happen faster. Actually name a government program that claims to be universal and is more efficient and cheaper than its private sector counterpart. There isnt any and this is because private companies are always more efficient and responsive than those run by the government. But then again maybe you should just trust Kerry at his word. By the way his running mate and people like him (golddigging lawyers) have done worse things to the price of healthcare than any president. Edwards has shut down entire wings in hospitals thereby making it more difficult and costly to have things like birthing and neo-natal care.

2. Iraq
Im glad youve finally nailed down his position in Iraq because I dont think John Kerry has even decided, then again there is another public opinion poll coming out that will make him change it again.
NATO is all well and good but I thought that Kerry wanted US forces only to be deployed at teh auspices of the UN. Uh-oh did john change his stance again or is he going to have it both ways. “ill vote for it before i vote against it”
Kerry will recieve a pledge of respect by Iraqs neighbors, are you serious? Do you actually see that as realistic?
Partner with other nations? I guess 30 nations involved in Iraq isnt enough, I guess Kerry should continue to say that we are in it alone to further insult those allies who do support us so that their nations’ liberal press can have more ammunition to insult their leaders and their support for the war will continue to dwindle too.
And As soon as Kerry steps into the whitehouse do you think the rest of the world will heave a big sigh of relief and say “oh now that Bush is gone, we will send our troops and trainers and builders into Iraq to help out the good old US of A. No. Rather obtuse thinking on the part of John Kerry. He is too arrogant for his own record to back up.

3. Jobs
1. Kerry doesnt have the secret formula for job creation. Bush is doing everything in his power to create jobs and he is doing a soso job of it. Clinton didnt work to create jobs, the market did it all for him. And do you know how many of those were dotcom jobs that dried up after the bubble burst and the industry went through its reorganization.
2. Nice soundbite but there is no real plan for that.
3. Taxcredit is a taxcut. Sounds good, can we afford it? maybe
4. End the taxbreak for companies to send jobs overseas. But does provide an incentive not to send jobs overseas. On the other hand companies will always use cheap labor in others countries. and a little tax savings is not going to change that. But cut corporate taxes by 5%. That is a HUGE taxcut to big business. thats a huge net tax cut. Can we afford this? Doubtful.
5. Cut the deficit in half? ok so thats huge tax cuts, with that increased job spending, a 1000 dollar a year cut in health premiums ($83 a month) and bring down energy costs? what was his plan for that? Hybrid cars? which already exist?

Sounds like Kerry is going to decrease taxes for the middle class and increase spending by 150% (look at how 50% of the US budget is on mericare, medicaid right now) to fund universal healthcare and decrease in teh premiums while maintaining the same quality. And he is going to cut the deficit in half during his first term while running a newly successful alliance in Iraq spending more money on rebuilding? This is what I call promising you the world.

Did you apply for your last job saying that you would cut expenses in your department by half? or even by %20? no you didnt. because you didnt know what the new job entailed. let alone saying that you could create a $1000 cut in this department because you dont really know how things work in the new department. But Kerry is. He’ll promise you anything. And you decided to trust the lawyer that defended Ted Kennedy when he drove a car off a bridge and killed his young girlfriend. Trust the man who admitted that he lied on the floor of the senate during his vietnam hearings. Trust the man who met with the communist enemy during the war and is comemorated in their war museum. Trust John Edwards the trial lawyer who puts doctors out of business and reaises healthcare premuims through frivilous multimillion dollar lawsuits. and Teresa Heinz who has been kept as far away from the spot light as possible, who has already had to make a half a dozen public apoligies since herhusband has started running, just wait till shes the first lady. Trust them all that they can perform all these duties.

No exit strategy for Iraq

In reply to Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

Bush’s presidential term is almost up and he still doesn’t have an exit strategy for Iraq. In the mean time, Iraq is going from bad to worse. The number of U.S. dead in Iraq already passed the chilling 1,000. More than 20 U.S. servicemen were killed in one week, 11 in one day, hundreds of Iraqi civilians also dead. Iraq’s major cities, including Fallujah, Tikrit, Karbala, Najaf and Ramadi, are all under the control of insurgents. Where is this grim situation heading? Answer: Civil war. So is the most likely future for Iraq, says a brand-new report from the regarded British Royal Institute of International Affairs. It is also a view shared by many American analysts. The three-way civil was scenario is as follows: One, the Kurds in the north gained breakaway self-rule in the 1990s and will not give up their autonomy. Kurdish militias are battling now for control of Kirkuk, a city outside of Kurdish-held territory and oil-rich. Two, the Shiite majority that suffered under Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party government, dominated by minority Sunnis, do not want to suffer under Sunnis again. Three, the Sunni minority, in control of Iraq for decades, like it that way. Sunnis now hold much of central and northwestern Iraq and will resist both Kurdish domination in the north and any attempt at Shiite control of Baghdad.

Source: PBS

The Exit Strategy

In reply to No exit strategy for Iraq

Ever hear of “winning” first then leaving? Rome wasn’t built in a day, and it’s always been stated this would take some time. The trouble with a lot of Americans is they expect quick easy solutions to every problem. The world don’t work that way as much as we would like it to.

What would Waffleman do, pack up everything and just leave? It’s a good thing other generations didn’t have the same outlook, we might not have stayed the course in WWII!

Still no sign of it

In reply to The Exit Strategy

Well it is not like expect this to be resolved overnight but Bush still doesn’t even present a set plan to restore the peace in Iraq. All I hear from him is that everything is fine. In fact, he even considers the future of Iraq is brighter than the future of America. Yesterday, he actually said “I saw a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America.” He also says that all the criticism about the actual situation in Iraq sends the wrong message to our troops. Well what is the message supposed to be then? Don’t worry? Nobody will shoot you? Nobody will kill you? We still have a long, long way to go before we can see anything that Bush pictures us at this point, and he still doesn’t even have a clear plan to approach it.

aldanatech deceptions continue

In reply to Still no sign of it

.
That quote is currently making the rounds on the Democrat blogs, Democrat underground, and partisan sites.

But interestingly enough it’s taken out of context and misinterpreted to a horrible degree. And then aldanatech, himself, puts his spin on it. I have to wonder, is his “spin” born of disingenuousness, ignorance or partisan blindness – or all three?

>>>>>>>>>> The full context <<<<<<<<<< Setting: President Bush and Visiting Prime Minister Allawi Press Conference in The White House Rose Garden . . . . Q Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister, I'd like to ask about the Iraqi people. Both of you have spoken for them today, and, yet, over the past several months there have been polls conducted by the Coalition Provisional Authority, by the Oxford Institute and other reputable organizations, that have found very strong majorities do not see the United States as a liberator, but as an occupier, are unhappy with American policy and want us out. Don't the real voices of the Iraqi people, themselves, contradict the rosy scenarios you're painting here today? PRESIDENT BUSH: Let me start by that. You said the poll was taken when the CPA was there? Q One poll -- PRESIDENT BUSH: Okay, let me stop you. First of all, the Iraqi people now have got Iraqi leadership. Prime Minister Allawi and his cabinet are making decisions on behalf of the Iraqi people. Secondly, I saw a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America. (Laughter.) It's pretty darn strong. I mean, the people see a better future. Talk to the leader. I agree -- I'm not the expert on how the Iraqi people think, because I live in America, where it's nice and safe and secure. But I talk to this man. One reason I'm optimistic about our ability to get the job done is because I talk to the Iraqi Prime Minister. I'm also optimistic that people will choose freedom over tyranny every time. That's what I believe. But, Mr. Prime Minister, you might answer the question on the polls. There's a lot of polls; sometimes they show you up and sometimes they show you down, as you might remember. PRIME MINISTER ALLAWI: Let me -- let me take a minute to explain to you something, a factual event. I meet, personally, every now and then with the fringes of the so-called resistance to try and talk them into respecting law and order and withdraw their arms. And I ask them in a very honest, very open way, I say to them, "What do you want to achieve? Could you know exactly what you want to achieve? Do you want to bring Saddam back from the hole in the ground, living like a rat? Do you want to bring him back to rule Iraq? Or do you want to bring bin Laden or similar persons to bin Laden to rule Iraq? If you want to do this, we will fight you room to room, house to house. If you want to be part of the political process, you have to be part of the political process, you are welcome. If you do not want the multinational force in Iraq -- I was talking to Fallujah people recently, to tribes, ex-army officers, ex-Saddam loyalists -- if you want the multinational force out, win the elections, go to the United Nations, talk to the Security Council, and tell them we don't need the multinational forces. But I tell you what is going to happen. If you ask the multinational force to leave prematurely -- this is me talking to the Fallujah people -- your country will be in ruins, and we cannot now, on our feet, stand and fight terrorism and global terrorism. These are realities. And once you are in Iraq, I will be my (sic) host. I can put you together with these people in my home and you can talk to them. And you can find out yourselves that the Iraqis, tremendously, by and large, respect the United States, and respect the other partners in the coalition for helping Iraq, not only in liberation, but now in helping Iraq to rebuild itself and to rebuild its institutions. PRESIDENT BUSH: Let me -- let me say one other thing about why I'm optimistic we'll succeed. By the way, you can understand it's tough and still be optimistic. You can understand how hard it is and believe we'll succeed. I remember when some were talking about the possibility of success in Afghanistan in pretty stark terms. I don't know if you remember that period or not, but there was a period where some were saying that it wasn't possible for democracy to come forward in Afghanistan. Today, 10 million citizens have registered to vote, 41 percent of whom are women. It's a phenomenal statistic, I think. I think it shows what's possible if you believe -- if you have certain beliefs from which you won't waver. And I believe people yearn to be free. Again, I think if you look at polls -- which, sometimes I do and sometimes I don't, admittedly, Moran -- that, by far, the vast majority of Iraqis want to vote. They want to live in freedom. And the fundamental question is, do we -- is this: Do we have the will to stay? Do we have the will to put smart strategy in place? I've laid out the strategy; we're implementing the strategy. But really, do we have the will to complete the mission? And my message to the Iraqi people, and to the enemy, and to our troops in harm's way, and to our allies is: We'll complete the mission. . . . . . The link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040923-8.html

Nothing else but the truth

In reply to aldanatech deceptions continue

Contrary to what you might think, I don’t actually stop by Democrat underground or sites like that. I check what’s going on the media, both national and abroad. Both of them show significant differences. As a matter of fact, the national media (even those considered liberal) are actually quite generous to Bush. The media abroad is non-partisan. They don’t need to be on either side and they don’t have the kind of pressure that the U.S. government places on national media so they can just do their job and perform their coverage as it is. Their coverage includes every single possible point of view: Government press conferences, interviews with military personnel in Iraq, and even the Iraqis themselves. They also co-relate with correspondents from as many countries (including the U.S.) as possible to ensure a more reliable coverage. One thing I can tell you about the Iraqis is that most of them are not pleased with the president or the U.S. occupation in Iraq, and they actually see the Interim Prime Minister more of the President’s puppet than an actually authority.

Media Abroad

In reply to Nothing else but the truth

You’re wrong about the media abroad and people abroad. I saw a poles from France, Germany, Russia, England, Netherlands, Spain and Poland. Each aside from Poland want Kerry elected. They say they thing he would be easier to work with. I don’t want someone easy to work with, that’s just another way to say spineless and will do what we want. And again you can’t tell me or anyone about the occupation until you have either been there or talked with someone who have been.

aldanatech presumes to know more than Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi

In reply to Still no sign of it

.
Your lies, aldanatech, are a horrible reflection on both the Iraqi people and the Americans who’ve sacrificed to help them – ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE.

You should be extremely ashamed of yourself.

——————–

“The Iraqi government now commands almost 100,000 trained and combat-ready Iraqis, including police, national guard and army. The government have accelerated the development of Iraqi special forces and established a counter-terrorist strike force to address the specific problems caused by the insurgency. Our intelligence is getting better every day. You have seen that in the successful resolution of the Najaf crisis and in the targeted attacks against insurgents in Fallujah.

Finally, our economic plan is to improve the everyday lives of Iraqis as we deliver both political and security progress. Here, thanks to a large extent to the generous security and reconstruction funding approved by the United States Congress, work is underway. Oil pipelines are being repaired. Basic service has improved; streets and homes rebuilt; schools, hospitals and clinics reopened. Thousands of Iraqis have new jobs. Salaries have been increased dramatically — in many cases, five or four times over. Iraq’s economy, freed from the stranglehold of a failed Baathist ideology, has finally started to flourish.

Mr. President, we also discussed the importance of holding free and fair national and local elections this coming January, as planned. I know that some have speculated, even doubted, whether this date can be met, so let me be absolutely clear that elections will occur in Iraq on time in January, because Iraqis want election on time. In 15 out of 18 Iraqi provinces, the security situation is good for elections to be held tomorrow.

Here, Iraqis are getting on with their daily lives, hungry for the new political and economic freedoms they are enjoying. Although, this is not what you see in your media, it is a fact.”

– Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi

——————–

aldanatech, take yourself to the woodshed – you certainly deserve it.

If I don’t, maybe Colin Powel does

In reply to aldanatech presumes to know more than Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi

It’s no secret that the situation Iraq is going from bad to worse. Just for September alone, there were a minimum of 140 kidnappings, 70 U.S. soldiers killed, and 30 car bombings. Even Colin Powell said yesterday on ABC that the situation is getting worse:

George Stephanopoulos: Is it getting worse?

Colin Powell: Yes, its getting worse and the reason it is getting worse is that they are determined to disrupt the election. They do not want the Iraqi people to vote for their own leaders in a free, democratic election. And because it’s getting worse, we will have to increase our efforts to defeat it, not walk away and pray and hope for something else to happen. [ABC “This Week”, 9/26/04]

Colin Powell knows

In reply to If I don’t, maybe Colin Powel does

Read what you typed: Yes it’s getting worse, THEY’RE DETERMEINED TO DISRUPT THE ELECTION. This was something known about months ago. The Insurgants don’t want the elections because that will than give the Iraqi’s a ligitament government.

Here’s a sign

In reply to Still no sign of it

I have a friend who was voting for Kerry until he talked to his brother in law. A medic just back on 9/25/04 from Iraq. What changed his mind was his in laws statements that even though many people are still dying, due to people that don’t want the country to be free. 99% of the people want us there as long as it will take to stop most of this violence, help with reconstruction and get a vote done in Jan. My friend did something smart, he talked to someone first hand.
Maybe you should stop listening to the big news outlets and see if you can find not one but several returning personnel so assist in forming an opionion on Iraq

Waffleman

In reply to The Exit Strategy

No, the waffleman’s plan is to offer reconstruction contracts to the French, Germans,and Russians. You know the countries that voted against war in Iraq because they were busy too busy taking billions in bribes from Saddam in the oil for food scandal at the UN. What have these countries gotten for this, Russia has terrorist kill children in a school, and France which passed a law banning the wear of anything that would cover a face, is now being threatened if the don’t change the law. Germany is unfortunetly next.

The world favors Kerry

In reply to Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

Opinion around the world is overwhelmingly in favor of Kerry to win the U.S. presidential election. A new international poll from Globescan and the University of Maryland covered 35 countries. Thirty of those (86%), favor Kerry over President Bush, two to one. Many of these 30 countries are staunch allies of the U.S. Only Poland, Nigeria and the Philippines backed Bush. India and Thailand are statistically tied.

“The poll registers the rising international mistrust of the United States across the world”, analysts say. An average of over 50% of the respondents said that foreign policy under Bush had made them feel worse about the United States. 19% said it made them feel better.

More numbers:

Germany
Kerry: 74%
Bush: 10%

UK
Kerry: 47%
Bush: 16%

And the piece de resistance:

France
Kerry: 64%
Bush: 5%

Source: PBS

If Bush is re-elected, at the very least he will have difficulty getting foreign support for policies abroad.

So What!

In reply to The world favors Kerry

All the more reason we should vote for Bush, especially if Germany and France want Kerry. Since when do we let the rest of the world dictate who we elect to office. Give me a break!

This

In reply to So What!

Like I said, if Bush is re-elected, at the very least he will have difficulty getting foreign support for policies abroad. Even thought we are voting for a U.S. president, the country already has so many global affairs that in one way or the other we are also voting for a kind of a world president. This is particularly true now with the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. Remember that gaining support from our allies we can this storm trough much more easily. Unless of course you still think we can handle this all by ourselves.

Reply To: Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

In reply to This

We have the support of the UK, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Poland, Ukraine, Denmark, Hungary, Czech Republic, and just about the rest of Eastern Europe between Germany and Russia, plus the various “Stans” (Pakistan, Uzbekistan, etc) around Afghanistan. We do not need the obstructionist or weak appeaser countries, such as the “Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys” of France. I would take the support of Poland and Ukraine over the support of France and Germany any day. The Eastern European countries appreciate freedom, since they overthrew the chains of Communism and Socialism a few years ago. Most of the countries of Western Europe forget what it is like to fight for freedom, as the WW II generation is dying off. But the struggle for freedom is still fresh in the minds of Eastern Europe. The “Stans” north of Afghanistan also support us for the same reasons, as they overthrew Soviet Communism and Socialism at the same time.

But still not enough

In reply to Reply To: Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

The problem is that all the other countries barely make 10% of the so-called coalition. Our troops still carry the other 90% of the burden.

Therefore

In reply to But still not enough

.
The United States can get 90 percent of the credit when we succeed.

Hey aldanatech, by the way, your precious French president, Jacques Chirac, in a speech at the United Nations, called for a “world tax” to pay for the eradication of “world poverty”.

First he expects Americans to pledge their allegiance to the corrupt United Nations, and then he expects Americans to pay for the dismal conditions caused by their corrupt leaders.

You can have them, but I want nothing to do with them. And just think, your hero, John Kerry, would go crawling to them with “humility” —— gag me.

We rely on you because we remember

In reply to Reply To: Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

By the end of WWII, the U.S.A set up the foundation of a new
nations order based on the principle of RIGHT, not on the use of
force, the U.N.

Do not miss the point, well beyond Woodrow Wilson SDN, or
1789 french revolution, this idea of united nation stretch right
back from the 1776 Bill of rights : the idea that human,
business, relations are ruled by the principle of RIGHT, not on
force, for the citizen common interest and well-being.

OK, UN is a “whatchamacallit”, it could be improved, but it is the
first time nations agreed after WWII that the principle of right
should rule their relations (at least should tend to)

Superman is dead, do not kill SPiderman : “With great power,
comes great responsabilities” as today’s first Super puissance (
China is coming close…) why USA would not show the path to
other countries in taking part and aknowledging the UN process
based upon the principle of Right to better ENFORCE it ? (or at
least, let’s be realistic…, to enforce this principle of Right ).

It is not even a question of “being with your allies” or not; USA
do not need the french to be a superpower nor to insure its
security.

IT is a question of MISSION for the USA as the first and biggest
democracy in the world to show the path of compliance to the
principle of Right as a mean to rule conflict between nations, to
keep this idea alive.
THis is your “grandeur” over whatever countries, this is also your
chance to show your universal mission.

It is yours and western world security that is at stake too;
do not you understand that the muslim world see the US and the
western world as an invader rather than a liberator ? that
terrorist movements are now increasing and being out of watch
and control since your government as open the Pandora box ?
THERE WERE NO NUCLEAR WEAPON IN IRAK to threaten the US or
the Western World

Otherwise,keep babling yourself in pretending struggle for
freedom while infringing the tool -UN – that was devised to
insure and protect freedom and keep your courageous and
anonymous GI’s being killed for a 50 bucks gasolin baril; its
ignition will come soon for us (I mean the US and europe)

What would indeed prevent other state to use force against the
USA for strategical interest when you are not the leader anymore
in the future ?If you went in IRAk to struggle for freedom why
are you waiting for chinese, north Corean people to overthrow
communism ? what about the human rights, what about freedom
overthere ? what should prevent Communist China to invade
Taiwan in behalf of their conception of freedom and state ?

In a nutshell, what kind of example do you want to stand for this
countries and the western world ?
This is your nationwide election, as a foreigner I would not tell
you who you ought better vote to, this is not my right…..and this
is your freedom.

Keep in mind though that UN as a mean to freedom,even if it
need to be improved, is an idea to fight for at least more than
spreading disorder on behalf of a pointless “struggle for
freedom” with a weapon in IRak and the rest of the world.

Bernard Guillaume
Paris
France

World President?

In reply to This

No way. Quite frankly the way some of the other countries function and act I could care less if they’re with us or not!

Some of our “so called allies” have already proven they don’t have the stomach for dealing with terrorism. Bush said early on that this was not going to be easy and that it would take time.

As far as being by ourselves, that is simply not true. Granted we may not have the numbers we had in the first gulf war but we are not alone.

It’s unfortunate but in some cases we just may have to go it alone. I believe we exhausted all of our diplomatic options and that an effort was made to enlist as many other countries as possible. What are you suppose to do if another country continually says No? Kerry would have everyone believe he could get these countries to say Yes. My question is how?

This

In reply to This

I stopped considering France and Germany allies when I found out they were to busy accepting bribes from Saddam in the Oil for Food scandal. As a matter of fact France before that. The French scoff at our country not remembering the freedom they have is provided by us entering WW II

Divided

In reply to So What!

Bush not only has divided us here in the USA but has divided us from the rest of the world. We stand alone in foreign policy due to Bush and we cannot continue with this policy.

dalivision

And he lied to us on this issue

In reply to Divided

On July 30 2000, Bush said “I’m a uniter, not a divider.”. But he is in fact a divider. This is what the Washington Post reported on January 18 2004: “As Bush begins the final year of his term with Tuesday night’s State of the Union address, partisans on both sides say the tone of political discourse is as bad as ever — if not worse.” One senior administration official said, Bush could have built “trust and goodwill” by pursuing more broadly appealing initiatives. One former Bush aide said the White House “relished the ‘us versus them’ thing.” [Washington Post, 1/18/04]

On September 28 2003 the Washington Post reported that after former Ambassador Joseph Wilson publicly challenged Bush’s claim that Iraq sought uranium in Africa, his wife–a covert CIA operative–was exposed by columnist Robert Novak. Novak said her identity was given to him by senior administration officials. “A senior administration official said that before Novak’s column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife… ‘Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge,’ the senior official said of the alleged leak. Sources familiar with the conversations said the leakers were seeking to undercut Wilson’s credibility.” [Washington Post, 9/28/03]

And according to the Washington Times on December 7 2001, Bush called on senior White House advisers and the Republican Party leadership to wage attacks against Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. According to the Washington Times, “The White House is escalating its attacks against Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle… [W]ith polls showing the Republican Party is losing some support in its handling of the economy, President Bush last week ordered senior advisers to take the gloves off and sharpen their rhetoric.” [Washington Times, 12/7/01]

Reply To: Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

In reply to So What!

Osama Bin Laden, Kim Il-Sung, the government of Sudan, and Al Quaeda probably also want Kerry to win, because they know he would not be very tough on them.

Let’s Try

In reply to Reply To: Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

Let give Kerry a try to find out how wrong you are.

Too much of a risk

In reply to Let’s Try

It would be too much of a risk to put Kerry in charge in these dangerous times, just to prove a point. Kerry has shown a record of appeasment and meeting with our enemies during times of war (which he did when he met with Hanoi representative in Paris) and giving messages of comfort to our enemies that were used to torment POWs in the Hanoi Hilton. I have been reading “When Hell Was in Session” by Jeremiah Denton, and he showed true courage by standing up to his NVA captors, instead of giving in to them, how he refused to tell lies for them, while Kerry gave them what they wanted for free.

The War

In reply to Too much of a risk

The war on terror is against Osama and not in Iraq and was never in Iraq. Is Bush planning to introduce Osama just before the election? It is because of Osama that we are in danger and that is what Bush has failed to convey to America and the world. But I do want to say that he did do that after 9/11 but flipped flopped when he focused on Iraq.
Kerry would do better.

Different fronts, same war

In reply to The War

The war in Iraq is one of many fronts in the War on Terror. Despite what Kerry supporters might want to believe, There were and are Al-Quaeda supporters in Iraq that were supported by Saddam. Taking down Saddam was one key step in the War on Terror.

Reply To: Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

In reply to The War

And you still did not respond to the fact that Kerry gave aid and comfort to the enemy when he testified in the “Winter Soldier” hearings and met with Hanoi leaders in Paris. He is now giving aid and comfort to the enemy by disparaging our efforts in Iraq and other fronts on the War on Terror, without giving valid alternatives.

Let’s not!

In reply to Let’s Try

Kerry hasn’t done anything to warrant giving him a try.

Vote For Kerry

In reply to Let’s not!

If someone did this to you, you would probably think of him as a FOOL. That is why Kerry deserves a chance!

“I’m the commander. See, I don�t have to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don�t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.” � G. W. Bush to Bob Woodward

What?

In reply to Vote For Kerry

Your response doesn’t make much sense. Kerry hasn’t done anything in the senate nor stated his case.

Try

In reply to Let’s Try

Why try a guy that has not voted for one increase in military spending in 20 years in the Senate.

Another reason: Moms rather than Bush tell the truth about Iraq

In reply to Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

One of so many reasons for not voting for Bush is that he still doesn’t tell us the truth about Iraq. Instead, it will be told by military moms that will travel over 3,500 miles to seven battleground states: “The war in Iraq isn’t about statistics. It’s about people,” said Nita Martin, who has had two sons serve in Iraq. “I wanted to join the tour because I want to let Americans know we have been lied to about Iraq, about the rationale, about the costs, and about our preparedness. The White House doesn?t want to talk about Iraq, but we do. And we will.” These are moms that supported their husbands and sons, bought body armor, written letters, and watched the campaign in Iraq deteriorate while the President continues to mislead the nation about the developments of the war. We don’t want any more of this, so let?s vote for John Kerry!

Oh Boy!

In reply to Another reason: Moms rather than Bush tell the truth about Iraq

You cite one mom by name, I’ve seen articles that go the other way so this is basically a wash.

Well what did expect?

In reply to Oh Boy!

These women are the mothers and wives of men that are death and men that are still risking their lives in Iraq. What Nita Martin said is what she declared to the press and she speaks for all of them. Did you expect to see a list of what each and every single one of them had to say?

No, you missed the point entirely!

In reply to Well what did expect?

The point was I’ve seen mothers representing both sides of the issue so the fact that one can present these mothers espousing this particular point isn’t anything new in times of war.

Some mothers understand that actions like this are necessary from time to time while others think differently.

No I didn’t

In reply to No, you missed the point entirely!

I know this is not new in times of war, but there is one important difference: These women are convinced that this particular war was not supposed to happen, and their sons and husbands are not supposed to be either death or risking their lives out there in Iraq. Not only think that actions like these were unnecessary — they know it and they are convinced of it.

Yes you did!

In reply to No I didn’t

They’re convinced just like you of their point of view, just as others are of theirs. This is nothing new and has been going on since time began.

The country is clearly split just about down the middle with both sides being thorougly convinced they’re right so you can find people on either side to back up what you’re saying which is all I was trying to point out.

Body Armor

In reply to Another reason: Moms rather than Bush tell the truth about Iraq

The lady mentioned body armor and your pal Kerry is one of 42 democrats and 12 republicans, just to be fair, that voted against this measure

Kerry is a better choice

In reply to Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

I know Kerry is not exactly the top Mr. Personable guy in the world. But for our sake, it is more important that we elect someone with the actual skills and view of leader. Bush has done a lousy job as a president in just about every aspect and things will only get worse if we continue doing everything his way. Kerry does a clear view of what is going on and has a plan to get us back on track. Or like you said, he can’t do any worse. That is a major plus for us.

Oh, and by the way

In reply to Kerry is a better choice

If you’re looking for charismatic, likeable, appealing kind of leader you got John Edwards.

Yeah, Mr trail lawyer himself

In reply to Oh, and by the way

He can really relate to the common man, not! Edwards is an “ambulance chaser” and more concerned with making money. Most people can see right through him, guess you can’t.

What’s the big deal?

In reply to Yeah, Mr trail lawyer himself

Edwards didn’t even grow up the easy way like Bush did; he actually worked his way up. He is the son of a mill worker and was the first one in his family to go to college. After graduating from law school, he set out to fight for families who needed help. For nearly two decades, he stood up for victims? rights against the insurance industry and stood down their armies of lawyers. He earned the respect, recognition, and gratitude from all the people he defended and from people from the entire state of North Carolina. This is far more that what I can say about someone like Bush that got all the easy way.

What a joke

In reply to What’s the big deal?

.
I guess that’s why he would have lost had he chosen to run for a second term in the Senate. He was so far down in the approval category – in his very own state – that just about anybody would have beaten him by a huge margin.

You don’t believe me, aldanatech? Look it up for yourself, and post something that disputes it.

Reply To: Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

In reply to What’s the big deal?

No, once he became a lawyer (for which I do appreciate the hard work), he took the easy way out and became a trial lawyer getting the jackpot from contingency fees by suing hard working doctors and taking money from companies that instead could be hiring more hard working people. We have lawyers just like him in Alabama, and they are crooks coming up with frivolous lawsuits and hoodwinking juries into giving away other people’s money. If Kerry-Edwards wanted to reduce medical costs, they would have a plan to limit medical liability like Bush, instead of suing the doctors like Edwards does.

Waffleman is a better choice?

In reply to Kerry is a better choice

How can someone who waffles on virtually everything be a better choice? He has no core values and trys to please too many, you have to make unpopular stands at times to be a true leader. Kerry has proved time and time again that he can’t stand by anything.

Better than ?oops? Bush — by far

In reply to Waffleman is a better choice?

There is a difference between taking an unpopular stand and making bad and even stupid decisions. As president, George Bush made both bad and stupid decisions. The outcome was hardly anything he promised us. Among other things he brought us a bad economy, had done virtually nothing to keep us more secure, didn?t even capture Osama Bin Laden, and he sent us out on a hesitated, unnecessary, and poorly planned war virtually alone that only continues to get worse and who knows when it will end. Kerry stands for the polar opposite of all of this. He stands for making the right choices. There may be times when you might decide to take an unpopular stand, but this is only okay when you perfectly know what you?re doing or else there is a great chance you?re going to mess up big time — like our good old Bush did.

Gee, I don’t think so!

In reply to Better than ?oops? Bush — by far

Bad and stupid decisions? That’s basically an opinion now isn’t it? What’s the factual basis for that statement? Your boy Kerry says one thing then turns around and states just the opposite, changes his decisions constantly. He has actually stated things that were in total agreement with Bush and then “changed” his decision.

Bush didn’t bring us the bad economy, the economy was already headed south during the last few months of Clinton’s second term, check the facts and you’ll see that’s the case.

Has done nothing to keep us more secure? Have you flown on a plane since 9/11? Has there been another attack like the one that day? You don’t have a clue here.

While it’s true Bin Laden hasn’t been captured yet Clinton had a chance to get him a long time ago more than once and passed on it. At least he is being forced to hide in caves and run which has got to play a little havoc with how well he can plan things.

Lots of wars have been fought over the ages that have gotten worse before they got better. Once again a lot of Americans are looking for “quick fixes” without any sacrifices, the world doesn’t work that way.

Kerry stands for making the right choices? Huh? Gee did he make the right choice when he engaged in war crimes in Viet Nam? Remember he made the statements before the house committee that he had taken part in such activities. Also remember that he makes a choice then turns around and makes the opposite choice, guess he wants to make sure he has all the choices covered then he can say he made the “right choice”. Example “I voted for the 87 Billion and then I voted against it”. Which one was the right choice?

So you think Bush doesn’t know what he’s doing? The same could be said about Kerry since he changes his mind on virtually everything. As far as knowing something “perfectly”, do you really think any of us always know something perfectly? It’s very seldom that any of us (including a president) have perfect information. That is so idealistic to believe in having perfect information.

You have not offered any compelling reasons for someone to vote for Kerry, it’s all opinion, no substance at all just like Kerry no substance at all.

But I sure do

In reply to Gee, I don’t think so!

You say Kerry changes his decisions constantly? Well, lets look at Bush’s own flip-flops:

10. BUSH FLIP-FLOPS ON STEEL TARIFFS

Bush Flip: Bush Imposes Steel Tariffs
“President Bush on [March 5, 2002] slapped punishing tariffs of 8% to 30% on several types of imported steel in an effort to help the ailing U.S. industry, drawing criticism from American allies and mixed reviews at home. ‘An integral part of our commitment to free trade is our commitment to enforcing trade laws to make sure that America’s industries and workers compete on a level playing field,’ Bush said in a statement issued by the White House.” [USA Today, 3/5/02]

Bush Flop: Bush Rescinds Steel Tariffs
“Facing a potential global trade war, President Bush on [December 4, 2003] lifted tariffs he imposed on foreign steel 21 months ago, declaring the U.S. steel industry healthy and ready to compete despite the industry’s claim that it needs more time to recover.” [Chicago Tribune, 12/5/03]

9. BUSH FLIP-FLOPS ON ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN

Bush Flip: Bush Supports Extending Assault Weapons Ban
Ashcroft: “It is my understanding that the president-elect of the United States has indicated his clear support for extending the assault weapons ban, and I will be pleased to move forward with that position.” [Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, 1/17/01]

Bush Flop: Bush Opposes Extension of Assault Weapons Ban
“The White House is opposing addition of gun show and assault weapons restrictions to a bill shielding firearms makers and dealers from lawsuits, prompting angry complaints from Democrats that President Bush is reneging on earlier support for the two proposals…In a statement [on February 24, 2004], the White House urged passage of the lawsuits measure without amendments that might delay its enactment. ‘Any amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is unacceptable,’ the statement said. Democrats interpreted this as an effort to undermine support for the gun-control measures. ‘For the president to say he is for the assault weapons ban but then act against it is a flip-flop if there ever was one,’ said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of several sponsors of the assault weapons proposal in the Senate.” [Washington Post, 2/26/04]

8. BUSH FLIP-FLOPS ON HYBRID AUTOMOBILES

Bush Flip: Bush Mocked Gore’s Tax Credit for Hybrid Cars
“‘How many of you own hybrid electric gasoline engine vehicles? If you look under there, you’ll see that’s one of the criteria necessary to receive tax relief. So when he talks about targeted tax relief that’s pretty darn targeted,’ Bush told the Arlington Heights rally, drawing laughs.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 10/29/00]

Bush Flop: Bush Supported Investing in Hybrid Cars
In his State of the Union speech, Bush said, “Tonight I am proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles. … Join me in this important innovation, to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy.” [White House, “President Delivers ‘State of the Union,'” 1/28/03]

7. BUSH FLIP-FLOPS ON USING MILITARY FOR NATION BUILDING

Bush Flip: Bush Promised Not to Use Military for Nation Building
In a campaign rally in Tennessee, then-Presidential candidate Bush criticized the Clinton administration for using the military in nation-building missions. Bush said, “I’m worried about an opponent who uses nation-building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.” [Governor George W. Bush, 11/6/00]

Bush Flop: President Used Military for Nation Building in Afghanistan and Iraq
After the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Bush met with soldiers stationed in Afghanistan at the White House and thanked them for their nation building efforts. A senior administration official said, “The administration, with its international partners, is doing something akin to nation-building.” The plans for a post war Iraq also included nation building measures and, according to the Baltimore Sun, “Secretary of State Colin L. Powell confirmed…that Bush was considering, among other options, installing a U.S.-led occupation government if Hussein’s regime is removed.” [Baltimore Sun, 10/19/02]

6. BUSH FLIP-FLOPS ON GAY MARRIAGE

Bush Flip: It’s Up to the States to Decide
In a 2000 presidential primary debate, candidate George W. Bush said gay marriage was a state’s issue, saying, “The state can do what they want to do. Don’t try to trap me in this state’s issue like you’re trying to get me into.” [Presidential Primary Debate, 2/15/00]

Bush Flop: Bush Supports Constitutional Amendment That Restricts States’ Rights
Bush: “If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.” [Bush, 2/24/04]

5. BUSH FLIP-FLOPS ON DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Bush Flip: Bush Thought Homeland Security Cabinet Position Was “Just Not Necessary”
In October 2001, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush opposed creating Office of Homeland Security position for Ridge. “[T]he president has suggested to members of Congress that they do not need to make this a statutory post, that he [Ridge] does not need Cabinet rank, for example, there does not need to be a Cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security is because there is such overlap among the various agencies, because every agency of the government has security concerns,” Fleischer said. [White House Press Briefing, 10/24/01]

Bush Flop: Bush Decides to Support Homeland Security
The New York Times reported, “Bush initially resisted Democratic proposals for a Cabinet-level agency. But once he endorsed it, the president pushed Congress for fast action as it debated such issues as whistle-blower protections, concerns over civil liberties and collective bargaining for department employees.”

In remarks to Homeland Security Department employees, Bush claimed credit for supporting the Department: “In just 12 months, under the leadership of your President…you faced the challenges standing up this new Department and you get a — and a gold star for a job well done.” [New York Times, 2/28/03; Bush Remarks at One-Year Anniversary of DHS, 3/2/04]

4. BUSH FLIP-FLOPS ON CALLING FOR A UNITED NATIONS VOTE ON IRAQ WAR

Bush Flip: U.S. Will Seek U.N. Vote For War With Iraq
Bush: …yes, we’ll call for a vote.
Question: No matter what?
Bush: No matter what the whip count is, we’re calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It’s time for people to show their cards, let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam. [Bush News Conference, 3/6/03, emphasis added]

Bush Flop: Bush Attacked Iraq Without U.N. Vote
Bush “failed to win explicit [security] council approval for the use of force” in Iraq. Two days before bombs began to fall in Iraq, the Bush administration withdrew its resolution from the UN Security Council that would have authorized military force. Bush abandoned his call for a vote after it became clear that the US could muster only four votes in support of force. [Washington Post, 3/21/03; Los Angeles Times, 3/18/03]

3. BUSH FLIP-FLOPS ON TIME HE’LL SPEND WITH 9/11 COMMISSION

Bush Flip: Would Meet For Only One Hour With 9/11 Commission
McClellan: Obviously, as part of this, the President will be meeting with the chairman and vice chairman at some point in the near future. We are still working on the exact time of that meeting. We have discussed with the commission what we believe is a reasonable period of time to provide the chairman and vice chairman with answers to all of their questions.
Q: Is that the one-hour time frame?
McClellan: That’s what I’m referring to. [WH Press Briefing, 3/9/04]

Bush Flop: White House Says No Time Limit on President’s Testimony
“President George W. Bush will privately answer all questions raised by the federal commission investigating the September 11 attacks, the White House said, suggesting that Bush might allow the interview to extend beyond the one-hour limit originally offered to the panel by the White House. ‘He’s going to answer all the questions they want to raise,’ said the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, whose remarks suggested that the White House was softening its negotiating stance toward the bipartisan commission. ‘Nobody’s watching the clock.'” [WH Press Briefing, 3/9/04; International Herald Tribune, 3/11/04]

2. BUSH FLIP-FLOPS ON INDEPENDENT WMD COMMISSION

Bush Flip: Refuses to Call for Independent Bipartisan Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction
“President Bush said on January 30, 2004, ‘I want to know the facts’ about any intelligence failures concerning Saddam Hussein’s alleged cache of forbidden weapons but he declined to endorse calls for an independent investigation.” [AP, 1/30/04]

Bush Flop: Bush Appoints WMD Investigation Commission
President Bush named a nine-member bipartisan commission to investigate U.S. intelligence-gathering capabilities in February 2004. The AP noted, “Bush had initially opposed a commission, but agreed to do so as calls grew from Republican lawmakers as well as Democrats.” The Los Angeles Times reported, “The White House opposed that panel initially, then backed down under pressure, and some say administration officials now regret doing so because the administration has become locked in a series of embarrassing battles with the Sept. 11 commission.” The New York Times noted Bush “gave the panel until March 2005, well after the November elections, to submit its conclusions.” [NY Times, 2/7/04; LA Times, 2/1/04; AP, 2/6/04]

1. BUSH FLIP-FLOPS ON INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION

Bush opposed an independent inquiry into 9/11, arguing it would duplicate a probe conducted by Congress. In July 2002, his administration issued a “statement of policy” that read “…the Administration would oppose an amendment that would create a new commission to conduct a similar review [to Congress’s investigation].” [Statement of Administration Policy, Executive Office of the President, 7/24/02; LA Times, 11/28/02]

Bush Flop: Bush Relented and Appointed Independent Commission
President Bush finally agreed to support an independent investigation into the 9/11 attacks after “the congressional committees unearthed more and more examples of intelligence lapses, the administration reversed its stance.” [Los Angeles Times, 11/28/02]

Also, Bush made the wrong decision of pulling out the UN weapons ispectors out of Iraq before they completed their job to invade the country. It is as simple as that. Now that mistake is costing us big time, and it will continue to do so for quite a while.

So go vote for him, I’ll be voting for Bush!

In reply to But I sure do

Bush could have 100 flip-flops and it wouldn’t be as many as Kerry has had. Neither one of us will sway the other so go vote your way and I’ll go vote mine, it’s the American way!

Is anyone stopping you?

In reply to So go vote for him, I’ll be voting for Bush!

Sure, it is the American way to vote for the best candidate, but so it is freedom of speech. I have my reasons to vote for Kerry and if anyone doesn’t like them then too bad. It would take a miracle for anyone to convince me that Bush is the better choice. By the way, all that flip-flopping deal was only something that Bush and his team came up with just so they could have something to work after such a failing administration.

For aldantech, did I say anyone was stopping me?

In reply to So go vote for him, I’ll be voting for Bush!

No, so why the title on your response? I never infringed on your freedom of speech either, merely stated what I was going to do. Typical of the way you and others on this site twist things.

You have to stop listening to FOX NEWS!

In reply to Waffleman is a better choice?

You bushies have to stop listening to the IDIOTS on FOX NEWS!!

You have to stop listening to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.

In reply to You have to stop listening to FOX NEWS!

You kerries have to stop listening to the IDIOTS on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.

Example: Dan Rather on CBS, yeah he speaks the truth all the time, NOT!

Does Fox News come in the “etc.” ?

In reply to You have to stop listening to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.

🙂

Fox News and Conservatives

In reply to You have to stop listening to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.

The group MoveOn.org has recently filed a complaint with the FCC against Fox News for false advertising. The complaint states that Fox News should cease using the phrase “Fair and Balanced” in its advertising, since it is clearly neither.

They cite studies which show that the average Fox News viewer is significantly more likely to have a skewed (read: biased toward conservative spin) view of certain indisputable facts about the economy and the war in Iraq than viewers of other networks. In addition, they cite a heavy preference for conservative guests on the various interview and opinion shows Fox runs, such as Hannity and Colmes.

Fox News deserves this. Although news organizations are under no legal obligation to be fair, most do try to present the facts as objectively as possible. Fox News is a notable exception to this general journalistic precept.

I am so tired of hearing about the “liberal media.” There is, of course, some degree of bias in all news reporting, but conservatives seem to think if you aren’t waving the flag and patting GW on the back, you are a liberal stooge.

Folks, it is entirely possible to report news that doesn’t show the government in the best possible light and not be liberal or even biased towards liberal.

When an administration does as many things wrong as GW’s has, it’s pretty much impossible to report ANYTHING without being at least a little negative.

And, let’s face it…one of the things that makes this country great is the fact that anyone is free to point out where our government is failing. Conservatives who continually pound the war drums and chant about preserving our freedoms need to stop complaining when those freedoms are exercised. It makes them look stupid.

A government that is only praised is a lot like the Emperor with his fancy new invisible clothes. It really doesn’t help to pretend he isn’t naked.

By the way, in communist countries, people are expressly forbidden to make negative comments about the government. Some are jailed or even executed for speaking their minds. Is that what Conservatives are after? I wonder.

Don’t worry

In reply to You have to stop listening to FOX NEWS!

You don’t have to worry about Fox news; as Benjamin Franklin used to say: “A lie stands on one leg, but the truth on two”. The truth is out there and they can’t hide it forever.

And you are right about security

In reply to Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

So we kicked Hussein out of power, big deal. Is that supposed to intimidate terrorists? Now if we captured or confirmed the killing of Bin Laden, then we would actually send out the kind of message Bush so tries to send out there.

And this is a central issue in this election…

In reply to And you are right about security

National security is a central issue in this campaign. We owe it to the American people to have a real debate about the choices President Bush has made and the choices John Kerry would make to fight and win the war on terror.

That means we must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.

This month as you know, we passed a cruel milestone: more than 1,000 Americans lost in Iraq. Their sacrifice reminds us that Iraq remains, overwhelmingly, an American burden. Nearly 90% of the troops — and nearly 90% of the casualties — are American. Despite the president’s claims, this is not a grand coalition.

Our troops have served with extraordinary bravery, skill and resolve. Their service humbles all of us. When Kerry speaks to their families he knows this: we owe them the truth about what we have asked them to do and what is still to be done.

In June, the president declared, “The Iraqi people have their country back.” Just last week, he told us: “This country is headed toward democracy. Freedom is on the march.”

Nevertheless, the administration’s own official intelligence estimate, given to the president last July, tells a very different story.

According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the president is saying to the American people.

So do the facts on the ground:

1. Security is deteriorating, for us and for the Iraqis.

2. 42 Americans died in Iraq in June — the month before the handover. But 54 died in July — 66 in August and already 54 halfway through September.

3. In addition, more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August — more than in any other month since the invasion.

4. We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever-widening war-zone. In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times — a 400% increase.

5. Falluja, Ramadi, Samarra, even parts of Baghdad — are now “no go zones” — breeding grounds for terrorists who are free to plot and launch attacks against our soldiers. The radical Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, who is accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in the suburbs of Baghdad.

6. Violence against Iraqis from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation is on the rise.

7. Basic living conditions are also deteriorating.

8. Residents of Baghdad are suffering electricity blackouts lasting up to 14 hours a day.

9. Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees. Children wade through garbage on their way to school.

10. Unemployment is over 50%. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys.

Yes, there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Schools, shops and hospitals have been opened. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails.

However, most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. Therefore, they are sitting on the fence instead of siding with us against the insurgents.

That is the truth — the truth that the commander in chief owes to our troops and the American people.

It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. Nevertheless, it is essential if we want to correct our course and do what is right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

Kerry knows this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, he returned home to offer his own personal voice of dissent. He did so because he believed strongly that we owed it those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do.

As Kerry put it: “Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. However, that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.”

The president has said that he “miscalculated” in Iraq and that it was a “catastrophic success.” In fact, the president has made a series of catastrophic decisions from the beginning in Iraq. At every fork in the road, he has taken the wrong turn and led us in the wrong direction:

1. The first and most fundamental mistake was the president’s failure to tell the truth to the American people.

2. He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. Moreover, he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens.

3. By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded.

4. His two main rationales — weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection — have been proved false by the president’s own weapons inspectors and by the 9/11 Commission. Just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat.

The president also failed to level with the American people about what it would take to prevail in Iraq.

He did not tell us that well over 100,000 troops would be needed, for years, not months. He did not tell us that he would not take the time to assemble a broad and strong coalition of allies. He did not tell us that the cost would exceed $200 billion. He did not tell us that even after paying such a heavy price, success was far from assured.

And America will pay an even heavier price for the president’s lack of candor.

At home, the American people are less likely to trust this administration if it needs to summon their support to meet real and pressing threats to our security.

Abroad, other countries will be reluctant to follow America when we seek to rally them against a common menace — as they are today. Our credibility in the world has plummeted.

In the dark days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered to show him highly classified satellite photos, as proof. De Gaulle waved the photos away, saying: “The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me.”

How many world leaders have that same trust in America’s president, today?

This president’s failure to tell the truth to us before the war has been exceeded by fundamental errors of judgment during and after the war.

The president now admits to “miscalculations” in Iraq.

That is one of the greatest understatements in recent American history. His were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment — and judgment is what we look for in a president.

This is even more stunning because we are not talking about 20/20 hindsight. Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bi-partisan Congressional hearings… major outside studies… and even some in the administration itself… predicted virtually every problem we now face in Iraq.

This president was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues that surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences:

1. The administration told us we would be greeted as liberators. They were wrong.

2. They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq’s infrastructure. They were wrong.

3. They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong.

4. They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong.

5. They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong.

In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. Moreover, the president has held no one accountable, including himself.

In fact, the only officials who lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth.

General Shinseki said it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. He was retired. Economic adviser Larry Lindsey said that Iraq would cost as much as $200 billion. He was fired. After the successful entry into Baghdad, George Bush was offered help from the UN — and he rejected it. He even prohibited any nation from participating in reconstruction efforts that was not part of the original coalition — pushing reluctant countries even farther away. As we continue to fight this war almost alone, it is hard to estimate how costly that arrogant decision was. Can anyone seriously say this president has handled Iraq in a way that makes us stronger in the war on terrorism?

By any measure, the answer is no. Nuclear dangers have mounted across the globe. The international terrorist club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on the rise. We have divided our friends and united our enemies. Moreover, our standing in the world is at an all time low.

Think about it for a minute. Consider where we were… and where we are. After the events of September 11, we had an opportunity to bring our country and the world together in the struggle against the terrorists. On September 12, headlines in newspapers abroad declared, “we are all Americans now.” However, through his policy in Iraq, the president squandered that moment and rather than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated from the world.

We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to our security. It had not, as the vice president claimed, “reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

The president’s policy in Iraq took our attention and resources away from other, more serious threats to America.

Threats like North Korea, which actually has weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal, and is building more under this president’s watch — the emerging nuclear danger from Iran — the tons and kilotons of unsecured chemical and nuclear weapons in Russia — and the increasing instability in Afghanistan.

Today, warlords again control much of that country, the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all time high and the Al Qaeda leadership still plots and plans, not only there but also in 60 other nations. Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on the warlords to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains. He slipped away. We then diverted our focus and forces from the hunt for those responsible for September 11 in order invade Iraq.

We know Iraq played no part in September 11 and had no operational ties to Al Qaeda.

The president’s policy in Iraq precipitated the very problem he said he was trying to prevent. Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before the war. Now it is, and they are operating against our troops. Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who someday could hit the United States.

We know that while Iraq was a source of friction, it was not previously a source of serious disagreement with our allies in Europe and countries in the Muslim world.

The president’s policy in Iraq divided our oldest alliance and sent our standing in the Muslim world into free fall. Three years after 9/11, even in many moderate Muslim countries like Jordan, Morocco, and Turkey, Osama bin Laden is more popular than the United States of America.

Lets put it plainly: The president’s policy in Iraq has not strengthened our national security. It has weakened it.

Two years ago, Congress was right to give the president the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This president, any president would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This president misused that authority.

The power entrusted to the president gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. In addition, we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed.

A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: “If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail.” He said that military action was not “unavoidable.”

Instead, the president rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. Moreover, he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which Kerry would have done.

Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no — because a commander in chief’s first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.

Now the president, in looking for a new reason, tries to hang his hat on the “capability” to acquire weapons. However, that was not the reason given to the nation; it was not the reason Congress voted on; it is not a reason, it is an excuse. Thirty-five to forty countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is Bush saying we should invade them?

Kerry would have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. He would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein — who was weak and getting weaker — so that he would pose no threat to the region or America.

The president’s insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. Moreover, it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new direction that makes our troops and America safer. It is time, finally, to ask the questions and insist on the answers from the commander in chief about his serious misjudgments and what they tell us about his administration and the president himself. If George W. Bush is re-elected, he will cling to the same failed policies in Iraq — and he will repeat, somewhere else, the same reckless mistakes that have made America less secure than we can or should be.

In Iraq, we have a mess on our hands. However, we cannot throw up our hands. We cannot afford to see Iraq become a permanent source of terror that will endanger America’s security for years to come.

All across this country people ask what we should do now. Every step of the way, from the time Kerry first spoke about this in the Senate, he has set out specific recommendations about how we should and should not proceed. However, over and over, when this administration has been presented with a reasonable alternative, they have rejected it and gone their own way. This is stubborn incompetence.

Five months ago, in Fulton, Missouri, Kerry said that the president was close to his last chance to get it right. Every day, this president makes it more difficult to deal with Iraq — harder than it was five months ago, harder than it was a year ago. It is time to recognize what is — and what is not — happening in Iraq today. And we must act with urgency.

Just this weekend, a leading Republican, Chuck Hagel, said we are “in deep trouble in Iraq … it doesn’t add up … to a pretty picture [and] … we’re going to have to look at a recalibration of our policy.” Republican leaders like Dick Lugar and John McCain have offered similar assessments.

We need to turn the page and make a fresh start in Iraq:

First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform do not have to go it alone. It is late; the president must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support.

Last spring, after too many months of resistance and delay, the president finally went back to the U.N., which passed Resolution 1546. It was the right thing to do — but it was late.

That resolution calls on U.N. members to help in Iraq by providing troops, trainers for Iraq’s security forces, a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission, more financial assistance, and real debt relief.

Three months later, not a single country has answered that call. In addition, the president acts as if it does not matter.

Moreover, of the $13 billion previously pledged to Iraq by other countries, only $1.2 billion has been delivered.

The president should convene a summit meeting of the world’s major powers and Iraq’s neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq’s borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq’s future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq’s oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.

This will be difficult. Kerry and others have repeatedly recommended this from the very beginning. Delay has made only made it harder. After insulting allies and shredding alliances, this president may not have the trust and confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq. However, we cannot hope to succeed unless we rebuild and lead strong alliances so that other nations share the burden with us. That is the only way to succeed.

Second, the president must get “serious” about training Iraqi security forces.

Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. Two weeks ago, he admitted that claim was exaggerated by more than 50 percent. Iraq, he said, now has 95,000 trained security forces.

But guess what? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth. For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained, by the administration’s own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one has completed a 24-week field-training program. Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces cannot stop the insurgency or provide basic law and order?

The president should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. Moreover, he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers.

Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people.

Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise spending priorities in Iraq. It took 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority, 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical, 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers.

One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. Kerry said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we are paying the price.

Now, the president should look at the whole reconstruction package, draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects, and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.

Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year.

Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly to write a Constitution that yields a viable power sharing arrangement.

Because Iraqis have no experience holding free and fair elections, the president agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role. Yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. Secretary General and administration officials themselves say the elections are in grave doubt. Because the security situation is so bad and because not a single country has offered troops to protect the U.N. elections mission, the U.N. has less than 25 percent of the staff it needs in Iraq to get the job done.

The president should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force. This will not be easy. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq should still help protect the U.N. We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S forces would end up bearing those burdens alone.

If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces, train the Iraqis to provide their own security, develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year — we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years.

This is what has to be done. This is what Kerry would do as president today. But we cannot afford to wait until January. President Bush owes it to the American people to tell the truth and put Iraq on the right track. Even more, he owes it to our troops and their families, whose sacrifice is a testament to the best of America.

The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: We must make Iraq the world’s responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden. We must effectively train Iraqis, because they should be responsible for their own security. We must move forward with reconstruction, because that is essential to stop the spread of terror. And we must help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it is up to them to run their own country. That is the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.

On May 1 of last year, Bush stood in front of a now infamous banner that read “Mission Accomplished.” He declared to the American people: “In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” In fact, the worst part of the war was just beginning, with the greatest number of American casualties still to come. The president misled, miscalculated, and mismanaged every aspect of this undertaking and he has made the achievement of our objective — a stable Iraq, secure within its borders, with a representative government, harder to achieve.

In Iraq, this administration’s record is filled with bad predictions, inaccurate cost estimates, deceptive statements and errors of judgment of historic proportions.

At every critical juncture in Iraq, and in the war on terrorism, the president has made the wrong choice. I have a plan to make America stronger.

The president often says that in a post 9/11 world, we cannot hesitate to act. Kerry agrees. Nevertheless, we should not act just for the sake of acting. He believes we have to act wisely and responsibly.

George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. John Kerry does.

Bush has not told the truth to the American people about why we went to war and how the war is going. Kerry has and he will continue to do so.

He believes the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war against terrorism. Kerry has a plan to fight a smarter, more effective war on terror — and make us safer.

Today, because of Bush’s policy in Iraq, the world is a more dangerous place for America and Americans.

If you share his conviction that we cannot go on as we are that we can make America stronger and safer than it is then November 2 is your chance to speak and to be heard. It is not a question of staying the course, but of changing the course.

Kerry is convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start and move more effectively to accomplish our goals. Our troops have served with extraordinary courage and commitment. For their sake, and America’s sake, we must get this right. We must do everything in our power to complete the mission and make America stronger at home and respected again in the world.

More sensitive!

In reply to And this is a central issue in this election…

I think you are right on Kerry having a plan to fight the war on terror He said it himself that he will fight a “more sensitive” war! What is he going to do? Meet with the terrorists like he did with the North Vietnamese and tell them that we deserved to have 3,000 of our citizens killed?
Can you please explain to me how he proposes to fight terrorism? Be sensitive to the French and Germans and the Russians who were providing weapons to Saddam?

This is how he proposes to fight terrorism

In reply to More sensitive!

The word ?more sensitive war? have been interpreted in a literal sense, but what it actually means is that we must fight terrorism the right way. Many people question that Kerry won?t give out major details on how he plans to fight the war on terrorism, and that is because a lot will depend on how Bush handles the situation from now until November. However, he does point how he plans to do this in a broad, general sense:

1. Restore the alliances we lost during the Bush administration to execute a more effective war on terror. We must all work together to get the terrorists before they can strike us.

2. Modernize our military to meet new threats. We must prepare our military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions.

3. Complement our military might with our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas.

4. Free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil. By tapping American ingenuity, we can achieve that goal while growing our economy and protecting our environment.

On the other hand, our troops are going through some tough times in Iraq. We must restore the peace and get this over with as soon as possible. According to John Kerry, we would have to focus on four key points to accomplish this at this very moment. First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform do not have to go it alone. It is late; Bush would need to respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support.

Last spring, after too many months of resistance and delay, Bush finally went back to the U.N., which passed Resolution 1546. It was the right thing to do — but it was late.

That resolution calls on U.N. members to help in Iraq by providing troops, trainers for Iraq’s security forces, a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission, more financial assistance, and real debt relief.

Three months later, not a single country has answered that call. In addition, the president acts as if it does not matter.

Moreover, of the $13 billion previously pledged to Iraq by other countries, only $1.2 billion has been delivered.

Bush should convene a summit meeting of the world’s major powers and Iraq’s neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq’s borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq’s future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq’s oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.

This will be difficult. Kerry and others have repeatedly recommended this from the very beginning. Delay has made only made it harder. After insulting allies and shredding alliances, Bush may not have the trust and confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq. However, we cannot hope to succeed unless we rebuild and lead strong alliances so that other nations share the burden with us. That is the only way to succeed.

Second, the president must get “serious” about training Iraqi security forces.

Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. Two weeks ago, he admitted that claim was exaggerated by more than 50 percent. Iraq, he said, now has 95,000 trained security forces.

But guess what? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth. For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained, by the administration’s own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one has completed a 24-week field-training program. Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces cannot stop the insurgency or provide basic law and order?

Bush should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. Moreover, he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers.

Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people.

Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise spending priorities in Iraq. It took 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority, 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical, 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers.

One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. Kerry said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we are paying the price.

Now, the president should look at the whole reconstruction package, draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects, and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.

Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year.

Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly to write a Constitution that yields a viable power sharing arrangement.

Because Iraqis have no experience holding free and fair elections, the president agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role. Yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. Secretary General and administration officials themselves say the elections are in grave doubt. Because the security situation is so bad and because not a single country has offered troops to protect the U.N. elections mission, the U.N. has less than 25 percent of the staff it needs in Iraq to get the job done.

The president should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force. This will not be easy. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq should still help protect the U.N. We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S forces would end up bearing those burdens alone.

If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces, train the Iraqis to provide their own security, develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year — we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years.

This is what has to be done. This is what Kerry would do as president today. But we cannot afford to wait until January. President Bush owes it to the American people to tell the truth and put Iraq on the right track. Even more, he owes it to our troops and their families, whose sacrifice is a testament to the best of America.

The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: We must make Iraq the world’s responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden. We must effectively train Iraqis, because they should be responsible for their own security. We must move forward with reconstruction, because that is essential to stop the spread of terror. And we must help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it is up to them to run their own country. That is the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.

Rhetoric and Nonsense

In reply to This is how he proposes to fight terrorism

.
You really buy into the rhetoric, don’t you?

And the nonsense uttered by John Kerry about the Iraqi prime minister, Ayad Allawi’s speech to Congress was amazing. And this is the guy who claims he can better deal with foreign leaders – and then he, in essence, called the Iraqi prime minister a liar. What a dunce.

Birds of a feather……

What’s funny is that you don’t…

In reply to Rhetoric and Nonsense

That’s basically what Bush himself said. What’s funnty is that you don’t explain why you personally think Kerry’s side is rhetory and nonsense, or how Bush himself plans to deal with all this. As for the Interim Prime Minister Allawi, it?s not like Kerry directly called him a liar, but the facts do speak for themselves. Just this week, at least 10 more foreigners and Iraqis were kidnapped, at least 10 U.S. soldiers were killed, Dozens of Iraqi police and National Guard recruits were also killed, there were at least 5 car bombings, and at least two Americans and three Kurdish men were beheaded. So for September alone, this brings to a minimum total of 140 kidnappings, 70 U.S. soldiers killed, and 30 car bombings.

I hate to do this to you

In reply to This is how he proposes to fight terrorism

All that sh*t wont work. The bottom line that you have failed to recognize are the IRAQI people. TO make this a success different than any other failed bombardment, the people need to be looked at first. This is the one uncivilized move that the US Made that makes its claims of being MORE civilized look pathetic. The reality is that the US inability to recognize and validate the reality of the citizens of the invaded country are precisely what is causing all of the problems. Why propose different military tactics when what is needed are humanitarian tactics of a US LEVEL. Such as detailed ID systems, citizen protected compounds, security and protection for ID’d citizens similar to what the US enjoys. To make it a successful democracy, they have to consider the people’s needs, how can you state your intentions are good while bombing the crap out of 30,000 civilians? HOW? The ‘military’ tactics are one thing, the GOVERNMENT tactics are another. John Kerry has no new ideas it appears at all. But he is better than BUsh who is the same as him with the same old ideas. There needs to be a recognition of other peoples cultures in all this S**T and that is the area the US lacks in and everyone knows it. The idea is to employ security forces and technology, backed by military, (similar to current US) to create a democratic state over there. You can forget bombing the crap out of it and leaving it like that or hiring more military to bomb it. All that will leave is a big pile of refugees which are going to end up over here anyway and then the country is controlled by terrorists anyway. He has given them the country basically

Are you F*cking Stupid?

In reply to I hate to do this to you

You’re voting for kerry?? if you haven’t noticed he’s a botox-taking libral dipsh*t!!! He’s f*cking Queer! He promises the world but can’t do Sh*t! He’s a f*uckung TIGHT – A*S. You F*cker don’t vote for Him.

Proposes

In reply to This is how he proposes to fight terrorism

Kerry still hasn’t voted on any budget increase for the military in his twenty years in the Senate. Give one good reason why I would want an oil for food country as an ally.

Voting

In reply to Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

It’s enough to know that Bush is a lying, arrogant draft dodger who multiplies our enemies, alienates our friends, was a drunk and a drug user into his forties and is generally the most reprehensible SOB (after Nixon) that’s ever been in the White House. Of course, that’s just my opinion.

I don’t care much about their history , I care about NOW and the FUTURE

In reply to Voting

It irks me when people go “so and so was an alcoholic”, “so and so was a womanizer”, “so and so used drugs”…..as reasons for not electing a president. We are all sinners (if you don’t believe in any religion or god, then change it to “we all are imperfect and make bad decisions in our lives at one time or another”).

What we should care about when a candidate had problems earlier in his/her life is DID THEY GET OVER OR SOLVE THOSE PROBLEMS.

If the guy was a drug user or a drunk is he now clean and sober?

If the guy was a womanizer, did he clean up his act and learn the meaning of the term “respecting others”?

Now its all different if the problems were things the candidate dealt with say in the last 5 years or so, because especially with drug addictions it can take years to truly get clean. But ever notice how most of the time folks complain about something that happened 20 or 30 YEARS in the past? Give me a break, like all of us who read this post were perfect sinless angels in our teens on through college years…YEAH RIGHT!

If you hate a candidate, fine its your right…but hate on issues that matter to the country; don’t sound self righteous like you’ve done no wrong in your life and look down on them as lesser people.

Hell I have no love for Kerry or Bush, but I don’t hate either of them because of personal failings, just their policies and their lack of honesty.

candidate history

In reply to I don’t care much about their history , I care about NOW and the FUTURE

I agree entirely with TomSal. I think that it is a sad commentary on our country that we dwell upon something as insignificant as something that happened when these guys were in their teens and twenties. If someone is proud of something that they did years ago and want to bring it up, then fine. After that, move on to the present and future.

I think that neither candidate really wants to talk about real issues. Real issues are boring to most people and the media. Scandals make the headlines. Scandals minimize any press coverage or commitments of the candidates views on the problems in society. The press is partly to blame on this but don’t think that both parties don’t push their own spin on insignificant issues and keep those issues in the press.

So, what was Clinton? And what is Kerry?

In reply to Voting

Clinton is a lying, arrogant, REAL draft-dodger who eviscerated our armed forces, sent troops to countries at the drop of a hat to take the heat off his love life, gave technology to China so that their missles can reach us, fried a lot of innocent people in WACO… yet the Dems loved him and said none of it mattered.

Kerry , on the other hand, either doesn’t know, or isn’t really willing to share what he truly believes about anything. Married for money twice, yells about outsourcing when his own wife outsources much of her Heinz business overseas, blames others for anything he does wrong, and is a self-confessed war criminal that alos lied about his military service.

On Waco – What would they say?

In reply to So, what was Clinton? And what is Kerry?

.
What would they (the Kerry people) say if President Bush – or Attorney General Ashcroft – ordered the attack on that Waco complex?

Kerry means business not bullshit like Bush

In reply to Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

Bush is in Iraq to look after Haliburtons interests and to make sure Colt and Remington keep making and using Bullets. Kerry is dead set against America being bullied but in this instance America is the bully. We have a simple exit plan stop coveting the Oil and let Iraq decide how they choose to govern thier country. The troops that are there need to hand thier weapons over to the people they are protecting and get on a plane and head on home.If there is an imbalance give each nasty enough weapons to kill one another and eventually they will stop thier so called Jihad.

Which Kerry?

In reply to Kerry means business not bullshit like Bush

Please can you clarify which Kerry means Business?
a. The one who said that he voted to fund the troops before we voted against it? or
b. Perhaps the Kerry that voted against the stealth bomber, the apache helicopter, the cruise missiles and so on, or
c. May be it is the Kerry that during his 18 years in Congress has not introduced any significant legislation. or
d. the Kerry that he is against big SUV’s and he does not own one, well… his family does! or
e. He is against outsourcing, but his wife owns corporations that operate in foreign countries, or
f. The Kerry who threw out his Vietnam “war hero” medals, well … just his ribbons not the medals, well… it wasn’t his it was somebody else’s or
g. the Kerry who thinks people who make $100,000 are rich and do not pay enough taxes

Can you please enlighten us as to which Kerry are we talking about?

Bush drank womanised and found christ again so vote

In reply to Which Kerry?

Kerry is a man not a god. His moral character is not in question. His wife could drive a Greyhound who cares.His kids could inhale pot who cares.The Heinz fortune has done more than just buy toys it actually funds worthy causes of which you have no interest.Both John’s are looking to get America back on solid economic footing, George Bush is parlaying this war he manufactured into several terms of office so his family and his Texas friends can continue to benefit by others obvious misery.If you know the symbiotic relationship between weapons and munitions and the corporations which Haliburton controls you would understand that George Bush is just like his father in every regard except his Dad actually went to war and knows the real cost on a soul.

Vote – The Resume of Bush

In reply to Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

Resume

This individual seeks an executive government position.
He will be available next January, and is willing
to relocate.

RESUME

GEORGE W. BUSH

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20520

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:

Law Enforcement:
I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine,
in 1976 for driving under the influence of
alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver’s
license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving
record has been “lost” and is not available.

Military:
I joined the Texas Air National Guard and
went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or
answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the
Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid
combat duty in Vietnam.

High School:
Never once made Honor Roll, but gained
admission to Yale.

College:
I graduated from Yale University with a
low C average. I was a cheerleader.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began
my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas,
in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn’t
find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt
shortly after I sold all my stock. I bought the
Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal
that took land using taxpayer money. With the help
of my father and our friends in the oil industry
(including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected
governor of Texas.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:

– I changed Texas pollution laws to favor
power and oil companies, making Texas the most
polluted state in the Union. During my tenure,
Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden
city in America.

– I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas
treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.

– I set the record for the most
executions by any governor in American history.

– With the help of my brother, the
governor of Florida, and my father’s appointments to
the Supreme Court, I became President after losing
by over 500,000 votes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:

– I am the first President in U.S.
history to enter office with a criminal record.

– I invaded and occupied two countries at
a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per
week.

– I spent the U.S. surplus and
effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

– I shattered the record for the largest
annual deficit in U.S. history.

– I set an economic record for most
private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.

– I set the all-time record for most
foreclosures in a 12-month period.

– I set the all-time record for the
biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.
In my first year in office, over 2 million
Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues
every month.

– I’m proud that the members of my
cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S.
history. My “poorest millionaire,” Condoleeza
Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

– I set the record for most campaign
fundraising trips by a U.S. President.

– I am the all-time U.S. and world
record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign
donations.

– My largest lifetime campaign
contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay,
presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud
in U.S. History, Enron.

– My political party used Enron private
jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success
with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election
decision.

– I have protected my friends at Enron
and Halliburton against investigation or
prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating
the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent
investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs
in history. I presided over the biggest energy
crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when
corruption involving the oil industry was
revealed.

– I presided over the highest gasoline
prices in U.S. history.

– I changed the U.S. policy to allow
convicted criminals to be awarded government
contracts.

– I appointed more convicted criminals to
administration than any President in U.S.
history.

– I created the Ministry of Homeland
Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of
the United States government.

– I’ve broken more international treaties
than any President in U.S. history.

– I am the first President in U.S.
history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from
the Human Rights Commission.

– I withdrew the U.S. from the World
Court of Law.

– I refused to allow inspector’s access
to U.S. “prisoners of war” detainees and thereby
have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.

– I am the first President in history to
refuse United Nations election inspectors (during
the 2002 U.S. election).

– I set the record for fewest numbers of
press conferences of any President since the
advent of television.

– I set the all-time record for most days
on vacation in any one-year period. After taking
off the entire month of August, I presided over
the worst security failure in U.S. history.

– I garnered the most sympathy ever for
the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and
less than a year later made the U.S. the most
hated country in the world, the largest failure of
diplomacy in world history.

– I have set the all-time record for most
people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in
public venues (15 million people), shattering the
record for protests against any person in the
history of mankind.

– I am the first President in U.S.
history to order an unprovoked, preemptive attack and
the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I
did so against the will of the United Nations,
the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world
community.

– I have cut health care benefits for war
veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for
active duty troops and their families in wartime.

– In my State of the Union Address, I
lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq and then
blamed the lies on our British friends.

– I am the first President in history to
have a majority of Europeans
(71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to
world peace and security.

– I am supporting development of a
nuclear “Tactical Bunker Buster,” a WMD.

– I have so far failed to fulfill my
pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

-All records of my tenure as governor of
Texas are now in my father’s library, sealed and
unavailable for public view.

– All records of SEC investigations into
my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are
sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
view.

– All records or minutes from meetings
that I, or my Vice-president, attended regarding
public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and
unavailable for public review.

PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN
2004!

A sad testimony to modern democracy

In reply to Vote – The Resume of Bush

if attila the Hun ran on the ballot his resume is actually a better read in spite of his viciousness.

John Kerry’s Claim to Fame…

In reply to Vote – The Resume of Bush

Please vote for me. My name is John Kerry, and I am not George Bush. If you are a crazy scumbag, and you need more reason than this, please consider the following;

While George Bush was in the National Guard, avoiding participation in the immoral slaughter of the North Vietnamese, I was committing war crimes in Vietnam. I burned down a village with a zippo lighter, shot a teen-age boy in the back, and was given many awards and medals for my skill at killing Viet-Cong. Other soldiers threw theirs away, but I kept mine (I only threw away my ribbons.) Even though I admitted my crimes to the US Senate, I was never tried for them. In fact, a vote for me will help me become the first self-confessed war criminal ever elected to the US Presidency.

You should vote for me because George Bush, despite being the first president with a Harvard MBA, is dumb. He actually released his Yale transcripts, warts and all. No one has ever seen my transcripts or SAT scores. You can be assured that I got straight A’s and a 1500. It’s just that my humility, by now evident to all, won’t allow me to brag about my previous accomplishments, (you know, like the bronze star, silver star, and 3 purple hearts I won while I was committing war crimes and atrocities in Vietnam.)

And, while that sissy George Bush was cheerleading, I was flexing my masculine muscle on the debate team, where I excelled at winning debates no matter which side of the question I was instructed to argue. It was here that I mastered the fine art of taking both sides of every issue.

And, while George Bush has a spotty business record, I have a perfect one, having never been in any private sector business at all. And even though I’ve never held a real job, I still control, more or less, a fortune at least 100 times greater than George Bush’s. In fact, George Bush is only figuratively in bed with multinational corporations, while I literally get to sleep with one every night. (Or, whenever she’s not mad at me for publicly disagreeing with her and her lovable but whacky theories, like her contention that George Bush has Osama hidden away someplace for an October surprise… gotta love her, though; without that mortgage on the ski lodge, I would’ve never gotten this far!)

Also, what’s great about me is that I wanted a coalition before using force against Saddam. Of course, when we had a coalition, I voted against it, and when we didn’t have one, I voted for it. In fact, if it was up to me, not only would Saddam still be in power in Iraq, he’d also control Kuwait. Gotta problem with that? Well then, in Theresa’s words, shove it.

Yes, George Bush’s irresponsible foreign policy interventions, both of which I voted for, have led to the dismantling of the Taliban and the deposition of Saddam Hussein. And look at what a mess Afghanistan is, what with the elections and women actually running for high office. I promise to take us back to the good old days when hand wringers like Noam Chomksy predicted the deaths of millions of Afghans, causing nuanced intellectuals like me to do nothing.

And, of course, the Iraqis will probably have elections in January, but hey, what’s so great about democracy anyway? That’s why I’ve instructed my surrogates to get Ralph Nader off the ballot in as many states as possible by any means necessary, including bullying and intimidating signature-gatherers, and employing corporate lobbyists and law firms to nullify Nader wherever they can. Poor Nader, calling me a criminal? Maybe, but he’s, you know, poor! Really poor.

And yes, the unemployment rate is 5.5%, below the average of the 1990’s, and home-ownership is at an all time high, but I promise to take us back to the days of the irrational exhuberance of the .com boom, when everyone in Marin became a millionaire by selling useless stock in ipo’s. Good times.

So please vote for me. Under George Bush, 90 percent of Egyptians hate us. I will roll that back to the Clinton era, when only 85% of Egyptians hated us. I will support gun rights and the patriot act, back Israel unconditionally, I will kill more terrorists faster than George Bush, and I may or may not increase troop levels in Iraq, but I can’t tell you that yet because it might offend you.

Oh, and by the way, if you want access to the rest of my military records, or my grades, or my wife’s vast holdings or tax returns, highlighting any prospective and inevitable conflicts of interests they may represent, you can kiss my ass, because you’re not going to get it, and, do you really think CBS or ABC would press me on it? Why would they, I’m not George Bush!

Which brings me to my final point… if all this does not convince you to support me enthusiastically, please hold your nose and remember the best, and perhaps only, reason to vote for me. I’m not George Bush.

What if the guy is not charismatic?

In reply to Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

I find hillarious with the state of the economy, our financial deficit, the corporative orgiastic atmosphera of not caring about the worker, the lack of infraestructure in our own country, our foreign relations that I have to explain why i am going to vote for Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards.
isnt it obvious?
I have already let the supreme court decide once and look what happend, the worst four years we have lived since the Hoover era.
I wonder when we are going to grow up and stop making our choices for what we like or feel appealing and comfortable.
We did not like intelligent and intimidating we did not like Gore.
We hang a guy and the best 10 years of economical empowering and political presence in the world for lying about his choice of not smoking cigars and bad taste in woman, we condemned him and his memory.
Lets be honest, really honest all IT guys when was the best time where your company expanded promote you and invested like nuts, when they were buying and merging almost every two quarters, when did your pay rate was at the top of the food chain?
yes that time, so do you want that back, or another four years of this, downsizing, outsourcing, laying you off and then offering you the same position with more responsabilities for half the pay rate ?
When the patriot act is going to be so far up your ass that your digestive system is going to be based on IP, it is going to be so tight and close, that there is not going to be place for error correction!
the choice is yours, but I know what i want and I dont care if the guy is goofy looking, do not have a sense of humor or do not have charisma ,I know what I want for me and my family and i will vote for Kerry !

Good point

In reply to What if the guy is not charismatic?

I absolutely agree with you. We’re voting for a leader not a movie star. We need someone who can bounce us back to the top spot of the world where we used to be only four years ago.

enough about charisma

In reply to Good point

My point was simply that if Kerry *were* more charismatic, it might be easier for his campaign to sell him to voters. Maybe Kerry should get some personality-enhancement training. That’s one of the raps on the last Dem nominee, too – Gore was wooden, Gore couldn’t relate to ‘average’ Americans.

So what do say we focus on issues

In reply to enough about charisma

Yes, I understand what you say. And you’re right. However I do trust that intelligent Americans that have a clear view of what is going and were we are heading towards will excuse Kerry on this little inconvenience.

Real Issues

In reply to What if the guy is not charismatic?

While I’m not a big fan of Kerry, I think that anyone who is intelligent and informed would not vote for Bush. Here are just a few issues, some of which have already been touched on.

World Support – While I don’t think that we should bow down to any other country, I believe that the rest of the world has a more informed view of our country than most Americans. We listen to a few sound bytes that tell a half truth and make a decision based on our emotional reaction to it.

Economy- I don’t blame Bush for all of our economic woes but he did contribute substantially. He was too proud to follow the economic plan that was engineered by Robert Rubin and provided the sound economy and a end to the deficit. The economy can be stimulated by lowering taxes or by lowering interest rates. When interest rates are lowered, the government benefits two ways. Lower debt payments and a increase in the taxes from greater investment. When taxes are lowered, interest rates stay higher. This means higher debt payments and lower tax revenues. For consumers and businesses, it is a wash. You either pay the bank or the government. Bush made the wrong choice.

Social Programs- First off, social programs make up a very small portion of government spending. There are many who love to blow this out of proportion. Welfare moms are not getting rich. There are just as many Ken Lays stealing the public’s money and to a much greater extent. So, let’s get our priorities straight.

Church and State- I think that if Chistians looked at the future demographics of this country then they might not be so keen on marrying religion and government. What are they going to say when their kid is being taught the muslim or hindu way of life? Do we really want religion being taught in public schools?

Schools- Since I mentioned schools, I wanted to make everyone aware that the “No Child Left Behind” actually cut funding to public education. But the phrase is good for a sound byte.

Lastly, I think that I want a leader that believes in research instead of a gut feeling that he has. When Bush was questioned about his policies and valid scientific research conflicting, he actually stated that his gut told him what to do.
Maybe he had the stomach flu that day.

I think that people should be looking at the real issues and educating themselves instead of having blind faith in someone who does not have the interests of the country in mind. I could go on and on but I’ll leave it at that.

Please go on…

In reply to Real Issues

You write well and it’s nice to read you. I would love to read more points if you have.

thanks

Oh my gawd – is he for real?

In reply to Please go on…

.
You said, “I (you) would love to read more points” of his.

Geesh, I can hardly wait.

Is it wrong to ask some one to write more?

In reply to Oh my gawd – is he for real?

I don’t think so.

I don’t think so either

In reply to Is it wrong to ask some one to write more?

I agree with you. There’s no need to be so sarcastic with someone that only requests further input.

Your message gets the prize – the booby prize

In reply to Real Issues

.
You said, that “anyone who is intelligent and informed would not vote for Bush.”

A few “unintelligent” and “uninformed” people:

George Will

Colin Powell

Walter Williams

Bob Dole

William Saffire

John McCain

Jack Kemp

Only to name a few, as could go on and on and on…….

Not to mention…….Maxwell Edison

Let me give you a hint. When you start your message with such an obvious false premise, how in the world do you expect anyone to take the rest of it seriously?

And there are indeed many things that a person simply cannot take seriously. For example:

>>>>>>>>>> World Support <<<<<<<<<< It sounds as though you're the one who's listened to too many sound bites. You actually believe "that the rest of the world has a more informed view of our country than most Americans"? Really? How many of these "non-Americans" have you personally discussed America with as to derive such a conclusion? Emotional reactions? You're the one speaking with your emotions, while you've thrown all reason to the wind. >>>>>>>>>> Church and State <<<<<<<<<< Name one public school in America that teaches religion. You can't, because they're aren't any. Why would you even suggest such a silly thing? >>>>>>>>>> Economy <<<<<<<<<< It's quite obvious that you've neither studied economics or verified the things you've said. I won't bother explaining, but you should read what Alan Greenspan has to say on the matter. >>>>>>>>>> Social Spending <<<<<<<<<< You said, "social programs make up a very small portion of government spending." Are you out of your mind? Social spending, i.e. transfer of dollars programs, take up a whopping 60 percent of government spending, about 1.2 trillion. Military spending takes 15 percent; interest on the debt takes 15 percent; while everything else in included in the final 10 percent. How in the world did you get so misinformed? You said "There are many who love to blow this out of proportion." Geesh, no kidding. You blew it WAY out of proportion - in reverse. You said, "Welfare moms are not getting rich." Again, no kidding. They never have; they don't now; and they never will. But gee, let's get more people on welfare. Why are you people (Democrats) so cruel that you want to keep people in totally hopeless situations? >>>>>>>>>> Schools <<<<<<<<<< You said, "the 'No Child Left Behind' actually cut funding to public education." No it didn't. Funding for education has increased more than any other area of the budget. Would you like to make a wager on that? You prove me wrong, and I'll vote for John Kerry. But if I prove you wrong, you vote for George Bush. Is it a deal? --------------------------- You said that people should be "educating themselves". Gee, we do agree on that. But you should start with yourself. Yours has to be one of the most misinformed and misguided messages I've ever read.

Clarification

In reply to Your message gets the prize – the booby prize

.
When I said, “Funding for education has increased more than any other area of the budget”, that means increases in terms of percentages, not actual dollars.

In fact you…

In reply to Your message gets the prize – the booby prize

..write well too. I mean it.

I tend to agree with many of your points and disagree with several other. Well, I get informed and often learn something about debating, people and culture.

Thanks…

I need a break – I’m gettting fed up

In reply to In fact you…

.
Thanks for the compliment – and I, too, really do mean it.

And to answer your question from above, no, it’s not wrong to ask someone to write some more. But at the risk of insulting people and/or sounding condescending, I’m simply amazed at the amount of misinformation that goes on around here. And it’s much more than just a different way of looking at things or a difference of opinion – it’s absolutely incredible to see the things that people convince themselves to believe.

I have to wonder, do people just make things up because it sounds good or might support a point they’re trying to make? Do people intentionally post false information in an attempt to sway or mislead others? Do people just repeat what they hear, assuming it’s accurate, and think it’s the gospel truth? I have to assume it’s all of the above – and then some.

If I had $100 for each time I saw something posted as “fact” when, in reality, it was either questionable, open to interpretation, or just downright false, I could retire tomorrow. This is where people might chime in and suggest that I must think I’m the only one who knows the “real” story. But when a person is under the impression that the sun sets in the east or the earth revolves around the moon, I just have to shake my head in disbelief. If I don’t know about something, I don’t say anything – except, perhaps, in the form of a question.

And contrary to some people’s claims, I can indeed be persuaded to change my opinion. For example, I’ve long held that a national goal should be total and complete energy independence. However, someone recently presented an argument to the contrary – an argument that was much stronger and more persuasive than mine, and I capitulated to his side, changing my opinion. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that happen around here. People dig their heels in, regardless of how persuasive an alternative argument may be, and regardless of how much evidence is provided as support. I could absolutely prove, without any doubt whatsoever, that they are mistaken, and they will still insist that “the sun sets in the east”.

In the beginning, I would try to respectfully point out a person’s misunderstanding, and I still do – but then before too long, especially when it goes on and on and on and on and on, I find myself growing extremely short on patience and I might say, YOU IDIOT!!!!! (This is where you’re supposed to laugh.)

But people form their opinions based on what they think they know – and the VOTE based on what they think they know. What if something they think they “know” is so seriously flawed that their opinion turns out to be a bunch of nonsense? If what they “think they know” is so flawed – or down-right false – what does that make their opinion or their vote? Misinformed at best, and a sham at worst.

I find myself defending the awareness of Americans, on one hand, but then, on the other hand, I see so many people who are “painfully” (my pain) uninformed and/or misinformed. How in the world, for example, did that guy determine that President Bush cut the education budget? I feel like saying (and sometimes do say) YOU IDIOT – NO HE DIDN’T. Don’t people verify something before they state it as “fact” and subsequently build their opinion on that “fact”?

And none of that even takes into consideration some of the lame-brain ideas people support, but they give absolutely no thought whatsoever to what it may really mean. (Okay, lame-brain idea may be my view of it.) For example, there was a guy in a different thread a while back who was in favor of people “collectively” paying for “their” (everybody’s) automobile insurance at the gas pump. Hey, great idea, he said. Everyone who drives a car should have insurance, and everyone who drives a car needs to buy gas, so this would force everybody to have insurance. (Lord, help me.)

I love to hear peoples’ opinions. I love to debate and/or discuss issues. But when it’s based on false information or misinformation, it gets to be too much for me to handle.

Exasperated – that’s what I am. So perhaps I need a break. Yea, a break – that’s the ticket.

I’m gonna’ take the rest of the day off, sit high upon a hill, keep my eyes focused on the eastern horizon, have a beer, and watch the sunset.

(Okay, off my soap box.)

Just have a good day….

In reply to I need a break – I’m gettting fed up

…and see you sometime later 🙂

Independent

In reply to Your message gets the prize – the booby prize

First off, I would like to say that I am not a democrat, I am an independent. I haven’t started my critcism of Kerry yet because I’m not sure where he stands on most issues. Second, I do know a little about economics and I have listened to Greenspan. The reason for our current recession was because of Greenspan. In hindsight it is easy to see that in 1999 the fed, along with the treasury provided too much money and too low of interest rates. The fear of y2k prompted this. No one could have predicted with any certainty how things were going to turn out. Economics is not an exact science. The psychology of the participants is a huge underlying factor. Greenspan had to correct his mistake and put on the brakes of the overheating economy. The reason that I give credit to Bush for the economy is that his misguided policies were the result of his stubborness to not do what the democrats did with economic policy and not do what his father did with economic policy. George H Bush did understand economics and I give him partial credit for the economy of the 90s. His unpopular decision to raise taxes was the correct decision. Had he been re-elected and continued his policies, I would have given him more credit. George W Bush on the other hand did not inspire confidence in the markets. Why? Because his policies were flawed. The market voted.

World support- I do think that as a whole Americans are uninformed. That is just an opinion. The partipants in forums like this are the exception. I believe that the media is partly to blame for this. Why have we spent the last two months talking about Vietnam? Who went, who didn’t, and what they did 30 years ago. I understand that there are character issues, but that should have been about 2 days worth of coverage. Both of these guys did grow up a little.

Social Spending – There are different ways of looking at what is social spending. Social Security for instance is likely included in your figure. This is not need based. It is income based. Those who contributed more get more back. Yes it is social spending just like money given to businesses for various reasons. My point was that when most people hear of social spending, they start pointing their finger at the poor and disadvantaged. This group receives very little of the budget. One could argue that much of the military budget is part of social spending with jobs it creates. I am not wanting more welfare particpants, just more and better jobs. To characterize democrats as wanting more welfare receipients is incorrect.

Social Security- Speaking of this, I blame every national politician of the last 20 years for not fixing the future problems with this. The ideal time to have fixed this was during the nineties when the economy was good. Every year that goes by makes the problem worse. President Clinton and the republican congress should have addressed this then.

Church and State- The religious right is becomming powerful. They do have an agenda and they are pushing the republicans. I still think that it is a mistake for republicans to tie themselves to this group too closely. If this religious group had their way, public education would not be teaching religion but there would be an awfully lot more religous schools getting the educational dollars in the budget.

Uninformed- Well Maxwell you are partially correct here. The list of names you provided are intelligent and informed. However, these individuals do not agree with everything that Bush does. Since their careers depend on party affiliation you won’t hear much disagreement from them.

Schools- Maxwell, you are correct here and I was wrong. I had my facts wrong. Education spending has increased. I don’t agree with how all of it was implemented but it was a positive for Bush. I stand corrected.

I think that it is sad that we don’t have a powerful 3rd party or 4th or 5th. Everytime that I have seen a third party candidate speak, they are talking about the issues. I don’t always agree with them but they are not still talking about what happened 30 years ago and avoiding what is happening now. Like I mentioned earlier, I am not a Kerry fan, but I am not going to vote for someone like Bush who is unwilling to learn from his mistakes. I thought that the war in Iraq was a mistake from the beginning. Since that time, since we were already there, we have implemented both good and bad policies. It is not an easy situation to get out of. It will be a challenge for either candidate.

Much of what I stated was an opinion based on reading about the issues and watching the news. Anyone is free to disagree with me. I have voted for both republicans and democrats. I just don’t think that Bush is the right person for the job.

bkmead – great post and I apologize. . . .

In reply to Independent

.
…if I came across as a jerk. And if I did come across as a jerk it was because I was being a jerk, no more, no less, and I’ll offer no other excuses.

I may post another reply when I have time to read your message carefully (I just skimmed it – I’m kinda’ busy right now)

Later….

Hey nice post…

In reply to Independent

thanks for the post… when I was reading this I did not connect you to your earlier post, and I was thinking “hey yet another post where a person is attempting to place his views” then I realized it bkmead 🙂

Having multiple political parties is good for the people. When we desire multiple choices for Operating System, Programming Editors, Routers, networks, PDAs, Cable Television, cuisines, clothes in fact in several facets of our life… why not desire for many political parties. We can play against each other 🙂

I do not believe in left or right, right-wing or left-wing.. I acknowledge people with such ideologies…but human desires and emotions are so widespread across the spectrum that it boggles my mind to fit everything into just two parties.

It’s about accountabilty & that is the issue.

In reply to Your message gets the prize – the booby prize

As far as misinformed and dividing posts I’ve read in this discussion; yours, Tom Wiggins & dbertsche@fascor.com are the most right wing, extreme I’ve ever seen. You post the most virlent and exclusionary proganda I’ve read so far. You examplify the class warfare that defines this eletion. That said, It was one of our founding fathers who said”Sir, I may disagree with your opinion, but I will fight to the death to defend it. Patrick Henry. You defend POUTUS (Mr. Bush) but the point of the arguement is he’s been a lousy president who’s lied, and bullied the entire adminstration. We have one party running this country and look at the mess that has been created. We need bi-partisan support. That will not happen while Bush is in office. Now to the issues, their are five issues that need to be addressed.
1. Iraq What’s the exit stragtegy

2.The budget deficit: It hit 374 Million and expected to top that this year. The “trickle-down economic plan that the republicans keep pushing isn’t working.

3.Health Care:About 43 million Americans don’t have health care. Inquiry, Why is it called “Big Goverment” when a domestic program that will help people lift themselves out of poverty is implemented. But the it’s called “creating opportunity” when it’s a handout to big bussiness.

4.Religion: This country is the very explemar of separtion of church & state. From the Inquistion to the Middle east we have all seen what happens when religon and politics get mixed up. Over in the middle east, religion runs the goverment, from the shadows is this the country we want.

5. Accountabilty: The most imprtant issue! This administration has demanded accountability from everyone else. When you demand accountabilty you also have to account for your own actions. This administration has done everything it can to obfuscate the current situation. It spins and outright lies about the daily situation.

In sumation: The Bush administration needs to go.

If I examplify the class warfare that defines this eletion.

In reply to It’s about accountabilty & that is the issue.

.
Which “class” are you suggesting I am in?

Reply To: Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

In reply to Your message gets the prize – the booby prize

From: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2003-01-28-education-cover-usat_x.htm

“Congress authorized $16 billion this year for aid to schools attended by mostly poor students, the major recipients of No Child Left Behind programs. But Bush has proposed $11.3 billion.

A recent study by the New Hampshire School Administrators Association estimated that even with the increases, Bush’s plan will give New Hampshire schools only $77 for every student, while costing the state $575 a student to implement.”

Can we say “talking out of both sides of his mouth?” Sure we can!

bkmead – Education Spending

In reply to Real Issues

.
Federal education spending in 2004 has increased by 118 percent from 1996.

The President?s budget increases funding for Title I aid to disadvantaged students and schools, the central funding program in the No Child Left Behind Act, by $1 billion for FY 2004, on top of the $1 billion increase requested by the President for Title I for FY 2003. If enacted, the President?s FY 2004 Budget will result in a 41 percent increase ($3.9 billion) in Title I spending since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act.

I have one question for you. How can you call that a decrease?

Bush’s broken promises

In reply to bkmead – Education Spending

Last week, Democratic governors released a new report on the negative impact INDIVIDUAL states have endured under No Child Left Behind. Here is a summary:

1. Bush budget proposal for NCLB program falls $9.4 Billion bellow authorization levels.

The administration?s current budget proposal leaves our schools $9.4 billion short of the funding Bush promised when he signed the legislation into law in 2002. This would bring the overall funding shortfall to almost $27 billion.

2. This year, title I schools have shortchanged more than $6 Billion.

Bush has provided schools with over $6 billion less under Title I alone than he promised for the current school year. Had he provided this money, every district in the country would have seen its funding increase. (Figure based on full funding estimates of Title I for FY 2004 provided by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).)

3. The money President Bush has denied our nation?s children could have been used to:

* Reduce class sizes for more than 6.5 million students, (Class size based on estimates from RAND Corporation study, The Cost of Class Size Reduction: Advice for Policy Makers, Robert Reichardt, 2000)

* Hire more than 139,000 teachers to provide specialized instruction in math and reading to help children meet state standards (Based on 2002-03 AFT Teacher Salary Survey.)

* Provide access to after school programs for more than 2 million students, (Based on estimates from the Finance Project (Halpern, Deich, and Cohen, 2000)

* Help the more than 1,252,000 students who did not finish high school on time this year? 32% of students in America do not graduate from high school on time, including 49.8% of African Americans and 46.8% of Hispanics. (Urban Institute study, Supplemental Analyses based on findings from Who Graduates? Who Doesn’t?, http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411019)

Even Susan B. Neuman, who served as assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education in the Bush administration until January 2003, said she worried that many of the nation’s most vulnerable children were still being left behind: “?even the most earnest teacher has often given up because they lack every available resource that could possibly make a difference. When we say all children can achieve and then not give them the additional resources, we are creating a fantasy.”

Two things

In reply to Bush’s broken promises

.
First of all, to be fair (of course you can’t because you’re a partisan), why not post the sentiments from Republican governors? Also, it’s the job of the state governor – of any party – to get as much federal money as possible for his/her state, so anything any of them say must be taken with that in mind.

And second, if you think that throwing money at a problem will solve it, you’re delusional.

In Washington D.C., for example, more than $10,000 (maybe $12,000 – I forgot exactly) is spent per student each and every year, and in Washington D.C. students continually score in towards the bottom of the pack in education results. Contrast that with Utah, Iowa or Nebraska, where the cost per student per year is around $4,000, and they continually score towards the top of the list.

No nit-picking, please. The numbers are close, but I haven’t verified them. Perhaps someone will want to take the time to do just that. How about you, aldanatech? Find the “accurate” numbers and give us your interpretation.

Why does spending three times the money get worse results? Because throwing money at a problem doesn’t mean things will get better – as history has shown – and that’s not the real solution.

In my opinion, it’s the Democrat policies that are mean-spirited, because all they want to do is throw more and more money at a problem (any problem) – even though it’s been shown that it won’t solve the problem.

What’s the difference between Washington D.C. and Nebraska? In Nebraska, parents care about, and take personal responsibility for their kids’ future (generally speaking). In Washington D.C., no amount of money will make the parents care (generally speaking).

Parental involvement is the ONLY thing that will improve education, not money – not three times the money, and not even TEN TIMES the money.

In short, Democrats don’t want the problems solved because all they have to run on is the “issue”. Democrats want the “issue”. Republicans want the solution.

money solving the problem

In reply to Two things

I agree that money alone does not solve education problems. The small town that I live in has a very good school for my kids. Their budget probably falls in the lower dollar portion of your example. However, there are underfunded schools in my state. Even though this is a state/county issue, I have one question.

If money doesn’t matter, then why do the individuals in wealthier districts insist on their taxes only funding schools in their district?
Why is there a disparity in funding across the state on a per student basis.

Ok, it was more than one question 🙂

Once basic needs are met, more money doesn’t always mean improvements. If the basic needs are not being met, I think it is another story.

Do you agree or disagree with this?

In reply to Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

.
“We know we can’t count on the French. We know we can’t count on the Russians. We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it’s in our national interest.”

Hey Max

In reply to Do you agree or disagree with this?

I always love your input on political current events, being quite informed. I dont understand how Iraq is a danger to the U.S.? As far as I am aware of the only thing Iraq can launch is a weather ballon or a kite as their Airforce, maybe a raft or canoe for their Navy, as for their army/marines, just some women beating bullies that surrender faster than the French that boast as bad as the French (Do you think the French are greatful that another country is hated more than theirs? Just curious?). The only Americans in danger are our troops and working civilians out there, trust me I feel for them and want them home safe. I not making light of the danger that our people are in but not America.

It wasnt, in my own opinion to be pre-emptive with Iraq, just an excuse punching bag for America’s morale after 9/11 and to save face, especially when the War’s motto was changed multiple times for support and outdated intelligence. To me it was more plausible for Bush to ask for anything (afterall politicians are the best liars)to mobilize our forces to save face rather than people in the intelligence community to try to pass one by the president and the world like no-one would know. Suprisingly enough the son uses the same tactics and warring like daddy did when in presidency calling into question other military records and using conflicts to remain in office and make rich cronies richer.

I know you are a staunch republican and wont turn your back on your party, but I do know you are fair and give many consessions to contrary opinion. I just honestly cant trust Bush and all his poor decisions for another term. I dont feel fully confident with Kerry but I’m willing to try till next election for something better.

jkaras – Define “Being a Danger”

In reply to Hey Max

.
“Being a danger to the United States” is often misinterpreted to mean just what you suggested: having missiles with a 3,000 mile range, huge standing armies, navies and air forces, and so on.

That suggestion simply falls apart under even the slightest bit of scrutiny, and all you have to do is look at the resources employed by the 9-11 perpetrators. They didn’t have any of those things either – not even close – so by using your criteria to define “a danger”, you would have to suggest that they weren’t a danger to the U.S either – even though they killed 3,000 Americans, destroyed tens of billions of dollars worth of property, and cost the U.S. economy upwards of a trillion dollars. If Iraq wasn’t “a danger” because of the limitations you mentioned, then neither was Osama bin Laden and his merry gang of thugs.

Iraq is one factor in the overall war on terrorism. And if you can see that, and understand that, then it’s easy to justify our action against them. If you don’t see that, then you probably can’t justify it. I think it’s as simple as that.

President Bush has taken a huge hit in the media over the past 18 months. And if you want to rely on CBS “memo-gate” and all the rest to form your opinion of him, Dan Rather isn’t the only one who’s being duped. And in a politically charged year, if you can’t see through the rhetoric and embellished accusations thrown at him by his political opponents, then you don’t understand the “politics game” very well – and if you do understand it, you’re letting the political rhetoric unduly influence your opinion.

The President Bush of today is the same President Bush of late 2001. The resolve and determination continues, regardless of the mud thrown at him – and the mud is apparently all you see.

On your “French” question – quite frankly I don’t ever consider what the French might think when it comes to determining what’s in the best interest of the United States, nor do I give a rat’s behind what they think of themselves.

By the way, my question was really for the Kerry lover, aldanatech. The quote I posted was from John Kerry, himself, uttered during an appearance on cross-fire in 1997.

One point

In reply to jkaras – Define “Being a Danger”

“That suggestion simply falls apart under even the slightest bit of scrutiny, and all you have to do is look at the resources employed by the 9-11 perpetrators. They didn’t have any of those things either – not even close – so by using your criteria to define “a danger”, you would have to suggest that they weren’t a danger to the U.S either – even though they killed 3,000 Americans, destroyed tens of billions of dollars worth of property, and cost the U.S. economy upwards of a trillion dollars. If Iraq wasn’t “a danger” because of the limitations you mentioned, then neither was Osama bin Laden and his merry gang of thugs.”

Ok, but let us look closely at then, just what Iraq did pose or did not pose as a threatto the US.

Could an Iraqi agent board a commerical airliner in the US with a boxcutter and hijack it? Probably not.

But what if they did? Would that boxcutter then be enough to overtake the crew, and the entire population of the cabin? No, very likely not.

So Iraq flying planes into buildings is likely out of the scope of possible threats.

Could they do something similar, but not with planes? Sure, the administration is doing little to stop cargo ships from running into ports. The Coast Guard can do very little to prevent a large oil tanker from intentional spilling off of the coast. I don’t see anything with rail safety being done [and as you can tell from recent N. Korean issues, that sure can be a doozy!]. The various power, data, water, and other utility infrastructures are hardly better off [if at all in most cases] than they were 4 years ago – certainly as far as preventative safety goes.

Instead, much attention has been diverted to an offense in a far away land. Too many resources are deployed too far away. Should another attack of whatever sort be perpetrated again on our soil, what then? Do you feel safer with all of our forces spread around the world and our butts hanging out in the wind?

I’d feel a lot better off if we had a stronger national defense, right here. I’d feel safe if I could see any progress being made securing our borders and the infrastructure that I depend on every day.

Nearly everyone agrees that we were right to invade Afghanistan and go after bin Laden. Maybe half of the US and certainly far less of the world in general believes we should have done what we did in Iraq.

Blood and treasure – too much of each – was spent and continues to be spent in Iraq. We are pissing off the world, which probably plays into the hands of the terrorists.

We hear very little these days of the hunt for bin Laden. Why isn’t the government heralding their progress in trying to snatch him? I’d feel a little safer then, too… The US should have spent all the time money and effort that they spent in Iraq, but it should have been spent going after bin Laden and shoring up homeland defenses.

Am I safer now that Hussein is in jail? No. I really don’t feel that I am.

So maybe I just don’t see how Iraq plays in the great scheme of antiterrorism. That must be why I can’t justify it.

Or maybe – I can’t justify it. That’s why I don’t see it.

“You asked, Could an Iraqi agent . . . .?”

In reply to One point

.
“ACCORDING TO THE presiding judge in last year’s trial (~1996), the bombing of New York’s World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 was meant to topple the city’s tallest tower onto its twin, amid a cloud of cyanide gas. Had the attack gone as planned, tens of thousands of Americans would have died. Instead, as we know, one tower did not fall on the other, and, rather than vaporizing, the cyanide gas burnt up in the heat of the explosion. ‘Only’ six people died…..Few Americans are aware of the true scale of the destructive ambition behind that bomb, this despite the fact that two years later, the key figure responsible for building it–a man who had entered the United Stares on an Iraqi passport under the name of Ramzi Yousef–was involved in another stupendous bombing conspiracy. In January 1995, Yousef and his associates plotted to blow up eleven U.S. commercial aircraft in one spectacular day of terrorist rage.”

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

It’s an interesting story – very long, but very interesting.

After reading it, then ask the same question of yourself.

You’re right, it sure is long

In reply to “You asked, Could an Iraqi agent . . . .?”

A little too long for me at the moment. I’ve skimmed the upper portions – I’l get back to it when I can.

But I got the gist it was trying to state.

That still doesn’t make me feel safer about terrorism.

If this were true, that Iraq got someone into the US and they built a bomb, here, and used it… Then we’re not protecting ourselves HERE. This is where I feel the money and effort could be much better spent.

right

In reply to jkaras – Define “Being a Danger”

You got my gist that the country of Iraq cannot war against America. So far there has been zero proof to my knowledge that Iraq had anything to do with 9\11, it was rebel terrorists. We, like the world can wax philosophical over whether or not certain Middle Eastern countries, support or control said terrorists to attack us and the world. I dont have the full story anymore than the rest of the world. There are sooooo many political currents, agendas, backstabbing, grudges, media wagging the dog, etc…. What ever happened to the hunt for Bin Laden? Was it easier to wage war against a nation, a known bad guy to save face? I’m sorry but W. hasnt showed me anything but excuses, promises, back peddling, reducion of freeedoms due to the Patriot bill (aptly named for reducing freedoms, I’m sure our fore fathers are rolling over in their graves)If W. made better choices and took care of the Enron scandal fairly as in inpartial rather than just sitting back and waiting then I would give him another shot, but sorry he doesnt have what it takes in my opinion and would rather take my chances with Kerry for 4 years till another choice comes around.

Generally Disagree

In reply to Do you agree or disagree with this?

Max,

The French DID attempt to help us!

They advised us that is was not a wise move to invade Iraq when we did, and under the conditions present.

If we had kept up the pressure in Afghanistan, and not invaded Iraq, we likely would have the entire Al Queda leadership in custody, or dead.

As to Russia, they have more than enough problems of their own to deal with at this time. I believe that we can count on them to share intelligence.

Preemptive action MUST be limited to surgical strikes against a specific target.

Under the “justification” used to invade Iraq, why are we not invading Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and a whole list of other countries?

1. Rumsfeld and Chenney do not have a grudge against the leaders of the above listed countries.

2. All 3 of the above countries have other nations that would join them in attempting to repel a US led invasion.

Yes, we do have a right to protect ourselves.
No, we do not have the right to undertake a preemptive invasion and overthrow the government of a sovereign nation.

Chas

Chas – doesn’t it bother you. . . .

In reply to Generally Disagree

.
…to know the huge degree to which the French were illegally benefiting financially with a cozy relationship with Saddam Hussein? Doesn’t it bother you that the French reaped billions of dollars by illegally diverting funds from the oil-for-food program into their own pockets? Doesn’t it bother you that the French were illegally selling arms to Saddam Hussein. And doesn’t it bother you that all of these things were carried out in direct violation of various United Nations sanctions against Iraq?

And you suggest that the French did attempt to help us by their self-serving advice? With help like that, I’d rather proceed without them.

And why does their “advice” to us have more merit to you than our “advice” to them?

And as I said in a previous message, the quote I posted was from John Kerry, himself, during an appearance on cross-fire in 1997.

John Kerry has gone back-and-forth on these issues more than a ping-pong ball. At least President Bush has remained consistent and focused.

Not as much as US actions bother me.

In reply to Chas – doesn’t it bother you. . . .

Max,

Personally, I think the UN sanctions should have been dropped once it was determined that the net effect was harm to the people of Iraq.

As to the French, perhaps we should invade France since they might have been aiding terrorists too.

I feel much less safe and secure since we invaded Iraq.
I suspect that the open terror attacks in Iraq are diversionary tactics to keep the world off balance while the terrorist groups plan and launch another round of global attacks.

As to Kerry’s supposed flip-flops:

The right wing info-tainers have been doing their typical job of “tailoring” the facts to suit the audience.

Of the reported flip-flops I have reviewed, they all make sense, and have logical reasons behind them. Most, like the $87B for the war, aren’t flip-flops as much as they are standing up for other principles.

Overall, I would much prefer a leader who was willing to evaluate new facts and change course than one who struggles to find justification to stay on a wrong path.

Chas

My Reply

In reply to Not as much as US actions bother me.

.
UN Sanctions: So your real beef is with the UN in this regard. And don’t say that the UN is a puppet of the US, because their opposition to the US in Iraq proves that false.

Invade France: Geesh, such a stretch surpasses the ridiculous, and it shows how one’s emotions can over-rule their reason. (Yes, I know it was said in jest, but to even jokingly suggest such a thing reveals one’s thinking.)

Feel less safe: How many terrorist attempts on American soil have been intercepted and/or prevented since 9-11? Who knows? But I’ll bet it’s more than one. How many more have been perpetrated? Zero. If you don’t “feel safe”, perhaps you should focus on just living your life.

Future terror attacks: You could be right. Therefore what?

Kerry’s flip-flops: “right-wing info-trainers”? What are you talking about? Are you suggesting something?

Reported flip-flops: Are you serious?

On evaluate new facts and change course: Would you give the same consideration to President Bush instead of your past criticism on his “change of mind” based on “new facts”? I didn’t think so.

——————–

I know you literally despise President Bush, to the point of, in my opinion, making your thinking very irrational.

Let the hate and contempt go – it hurts only yourself. And after all, if you don’t, the next four years (with GWB) will be absolutely excruciating for you.

Agree to disagree

In reply to My Reply

Max,

To be honest, my level of dislike for GWB does bother me.

I have never taken such an instant and deep dislike of an individual. Especially one I have never met.

I guess that you and I will have to agree to disagree on GWB and the war in Iraq.

Chas

French

In reply to Chas – doesn’t it bother you. . . .

Doesn’t it bother anyone that American companies have been implicated in illegal oil deals with Iraq. Does it bother anyone that the US has sold arms to Iraq, Iran, given technology to the Chinese etc., sometimes illegally. Does it bother anyone that some of our leaders say that we don’t have to follow the Geneva convention.

Answering a question with a question

In reply to French

.
I’ll make a deal with you. If you go back and answer all of my questions, I’ll answer all of yours.

No answers

In reply to Answering a question with a question

Well, I don’t have all of the answers to the worlds problems. Just some of them. I have a lot more questions than answers.

The purpose of my last post was to bring up the fact that the US does not always do the right thing either. Whether it was the arms deals of the 80s, the technology transfer in the 90s and so on.

So, no deal maxwell

Hey Chas – Do you remember. . . .

In reply to Generally Disagree

.
…that “story” I started writing (and posted) about the pilots of the Air National Guard, and described an instance of a scramble to identify unknown aircraft approaching the US?

I started writing that story to illustrate the true mission of the ANG. I always considered the possibility that GWB could have been one of those interceptor pilots, I guess he really was.

http://www4.thedailytimes.com/

Yes

In reply to Hey Chas – Do you remember. . . .

Yes Max, I remember.

The story in the link is interesting.
But, not as good as your writing.

Perhaps you should consider a side career as a columnist.

While I don’t want to temp the “fates”, it would be interesting if a third party could explain just why you and I perceive GWB so differently.

Out of respect for you as an individual, and your well researched, reasoned and insightful posts, I have reviewed my beliefs and position on GWB.
From time to time, I almost come to a level of acceptance. Then, some part of a speech, or a campaign add irritates me and I shift right back to my original impression.

Today it was the way that Donald Rumsfeld attempted to downplay the continued deaths in Iraq. He made it sound like the problem is not that people are dieing, but that the media is covering the deaths.

Chas

Respect – Be assured, it’s mutual

In reply to Yes

.
A third party “evaluation” of our different outlook. Now that would be interesting. Do you have anyone in mind? As it can’t be any of the “usual suspects”, who do you suggest?

How about mrafrohead? Any takers?

A columnist? I’m flattered you made such a suggestion. And I have thoght about it, but how to get started?

you share more than you realise it is this planet.!

In reply to Respect – Be assured, it’s mutual

In an ideological world we cannot afford to forget that commerce not religion is what fuels the planet.The oil crisis we have been told is looming is fabricated, the war in Iraq was manufactured, the terrorist’s in the middle east are insignificant what is real is that we (sheep)all perceive a clear and present threat. This global conflict is engineered to keep the planet at Bay when in reality the Americas and most of the G7 need to get off thier asses and seriously solve real human suffering rather than allow genocide and starvation to continue. The Muslim and Hindi world wishes us dead not because of who we are but because of what we represent.To most religions the worlds power base is jaded and corrupt we need to address the imbalance in a short hurry as we as people have missed the reality that the world is dangerous because it is suffering on an unprecedented scale. People in the America’s and beyond had best start using our combined intellect to feed and protect all peoples not just our own. Nimby has been rendered impotent since anyone anywhere suffering injustice and facing genocide would be well advised to strike out against the people and governments that have been killing them.If we want real peace then we had best start offering real solutions to economic issues at a human level that makes sense.

Bush changed his position in Iraq so many times

In reply to Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

I notice that Bush campaign relies heavily on distorting Kerry’s position on the war in Iraq. I doesn’t surprise me. After all he has to have something to make up for all the bad choices he made during his administration. But to clarify this, I would like to mention that Kerry did described Hussein as someone that deserves its place in hell, and demanded that the U.S. build “broad international support for any action in Iraq” and insisted that the nation had better plan for the post-war peace. Nearly two years ago, Kerry implored Bush to take the matter to the United Nations on the Senate floor, stating that he would only support a multilateral effort to disarm Hussein by force, if we ever exhaust other options. So it is not that hard to see the simple truth: Bush insisted on taking such a drastic and hasty decision, and after he got the power to carry on his decisions he made all worse possible choices that a U.S. president could ever possible make.

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/23/MNGQK8TI8O1.DTL

And by the way, here are Bush’s so many positions on Iraq

In reply to Bush changed his position in Iraq so many times

PLAN E….Is George Bush in “fantasyland” regarding Iraq, as John Kerry says? I realize that’s the fashionable position among lefty partisans, but it’s honestly hard to come to any other conclusion these days.

We all know the wildly erratic background. In the beginning, administration ideologues were convinced we’d be welcomed with flowers. Within a few months we’d install Ahmed Chalabi as president of a liberated Iraq, draw down the occupation force to about 30,000 troops, and declare victory.

That really was fantasy, but when that plan almost immediately fell apart there was no Plan B on the shelf. So the administration ginned one up posthaste: disband the Iraqi army and stay around for a while. Jay Garner objected, so he was fired and Jerry Bremer was called in to be our new proconsul.

But that plan didn’t work out too well either. By November scattered attacks had grown into a full-blown insurgency and Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, apparently tired of Bremer’s strongman act, insisted on quick elections. After some panicky discussions back home and a call to the UN, Plan C was unveiled: we would turn over power on June 30 and hold elections seven months after that.

But that still didn’t work. The turnover proceeded on schedule, but security didn’t get any better. Fallujah and Najaf became rebel strongholds, hamhanded planning turned Muqtada al-Sadr into a Shiite hero, and a dangerous insurgency became a full-blown guerrilla war.

So now we’re on Plan D, a feebly disguised version of Plan C: the elections will proceed as scheduled and that will fix everything. It’s unlikely that anyone below the level of cabinet secretary actually believes this, but it’s impossible to say so because there’s an election coming up. An American election, that is.

That election, and the political considerations that go along with it, have been driving our military strategy for the past two years. Before the war, we passed up a chance to take out terrorist mastermind Abu Musab Zarqawi ? for political reasons. We invaded with too few troops ? for political reasons. We lowballed the cost of the war ? for political reasons. We ignored the UN and then turned around and pleaded for their help ? for political reasons. Then we installed Iyad Allawi as president behind the UN’s back ? for political reasons.

And just recently we’ve learned that the Marines were yo-yoed in and out of Fallujah ? for political reasons. The president has bizarrely dismissed his own intelligence agencies’ analysis of Iraq as “guessing” ? for political reasons. He’s ignored the advice of his own generals about troop requirements for the upcoming elections ? for political reasons. And assaults on Baathist enclaves have been postponed until December ? for fairly obvious political reasons.

And Thursday’s press conference was just scary. It’s no longer clear if George Bush is merely a cynical, calculating politician ? which would be bad enough ? or if he actually believes all the happy talk about Iraq that his speechwriters produce for him. Increasingly, though, it seems like the latter: he genuinely doesn’t have a clue about what’s going on. What’s more, his staff is keeping him in a sort of Nixonian bubble, afraid to tell him the truth and afraid to take any positive action for fear that it might affect the election.

So things will just get worse, since no one is willing to admit the truth and no one is willing to propose serious action to keep things from deteriorating further ? at least not until after November 2nd. But by then it will be too late. And when the Iraqi elections fail, what happens then?

What’s Plan E?

Source: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_09/004763.php

watch debates

In reply to And by the way, here are Bush’s so many positions on Iraq

I will be very interested to see which plans are discussed by both candidates in the first debate. Kerry has got to do more than just accuse Bush of living in a fantasyland. He’s going to have to articulate a plan of his own.

Yes a chance for Kerry to state yet another position!

In reply to watch debates

I hope he does just that so people can see just how clueless he is.

Kerry will win debates

In reply to Yes a chance for Kerry to state yet another position!

I predict Kerry will easily win the debates, and probably gain a ton of points in all the polls. He is just too smooth and too smart to let GWB out-debate him.

Yes, the odds look good

In reply to Kerry will win debates

Bush has such a bad record that there is plenty for Kerry to get around with.

Break out the ketchup

In reply to Kerry will win debates

.
It makes the crow go down a little easier.

Actually, no one “wins” the debate, as there is no way to score the event; absolutely everything is subjective. Moreover, this isn’t a real debate with real rules of debate in place. It’s more like a showcase on the Price Is Right.

The best either candidate can hope for is to avoid a Nixon-like appearance, a Mondale-type blunder, or a Quayle type whoops. Moreover, they will both be looking for an opportunity to insert that very well scripted “one-liner”, that hopefully leaves their opponent speechless. Like Lloyd Bensen did to Dan Quayle – “I knew Jack Kennedy……you’re no Jack Kennedy” or like Reagan kept doing to Carter – “There you go again”.

I predict that the usual suspects (you, aladantech, etc.) will claim that Kerry performed better, while the other usual suspects (me, garrion, etc.) will claim that Bush performed better (Or that one or the other performed worse), including the people in the media. If you want to identify which media pundits are left leaning or right leaning, use their subsequent observations as your gauge.

But actually, I think John Kerry has a greater chance to give the appearance to blunder or come across as undeceive, simply because he’s changed his position on Iraq so many times. With even the slightest bit of preparation, President Bush could easily get him to contradict himself, either on the spot or compared to what he’s said – on the record – in the past. John Kerry has tried to play all sides of the Iraq issue, and anyone with even the slightest open-mind can’t possibly deny it.

Nonetheless, you guys will say Kerry did better, and the other guys will say that Bush did better. That’s my prediction – and neither subsequent arguments will conclusively change a thing – including anyone’s mind or opinion.

But the election, that’s another story.

Bush 338 (with ~ 52 percent)
Kerry 200 (with ~ 44 percent)

No change from my August 5th prediction. See the link for my state-by-state predictions.

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=156934&messageID=1633784

How will you want your crow? Medium-well with a bit of ketchup, perhaps, along with a baked potato and a cold beer? (potatoE for all you Dan Quayle fans.)

LOL @ ketchup, or is that catsup?

In reply to Break out the ketchup

Max I am SO looking forward to comparing the actual results to your predictions.

fasthands – It will be fun – and on ketchup

In reply to Break out the ketchup

.
Yea, I’m sure there are plenty of people who are hoping that the meal of crow will be served to me. But I’ll be feasting on steak instead.

And I would use “ketchup” (not for the steak, of course), because I don’t hold a person’s political affiliation against anyone – including Heinz-Kerry.

Heinz is the best ketchup.

http://www.heinz.com/jsp/world.jsp

Later…

Political debates

In reply to Break out the ketchup

As a student of politics, there are a number of things I’ve learned about debates.

1. The amount of time they suck up distracts campaigns from their plan and message. Thats why incumbents often hate having them.

2. The timing is almost never right, because you can’t predict in advance when voters are making up their minds. Too early or too late and you go to a lot of work for nothing. I think Max is right that the electorate is already pretty solidified. The first TV debate Nixon versus Kennedy came at a time when the electorate was open and restless and not committed. Similarly a debate in 1984 in Canada turned the tide against the ruling government. But these are execptions – they had good timing and a volitile electorate.

3. Challengers don’t win them as much as incumbents lose them. The incumbent has an advantage in having a higher profile – more of a known factor, and has less to prove. Therefore the challenger has to attack agressively and hope to force the incumbent into an error. The incumbent simply has to stay error free. But the risk to the challenger is that in being aggressive they can be seen as shrill, whiny etc. But if the challenger can’t land any punches, the incumbent wins.

4. For already committed voters, debates usually refinforce existing biases and stereotypes. People see what they want to see.

James

Like Kerry’s better

In reply to Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

Heck, the Democrats censored Gov Casey of PA in their convention a few years back. There parties other than Republicat and Demublican. Choose them!

Backseat Driver- Kerry ?

In reply to Why I am voting for John F. Kerry

Iraq Situation – Any leader must depend on the information provided to him by his advisors and intelligence agency. I think there is enough evidence that Mr. Bush may not gotten the full picture of Iraq. Did he purposefully take the information given to him and lie to us about Iraq and Hussein? May be or may be not … I did not see the intelligence information but more than one person saw this information than just Bush . We call them Congressmen. I am incline to think that when Bush got the intelligence information he was also thinking about the events of 9/11 and the possibility of another attack. He wanted to be proactive and instead of waiting. The question of capturing Hussein is wrong or right is a question that we need to decide individually based on what we know via the media. Kerry says Bush has no plan to withdraw troops. I am not sure of that since listening to the debates. Each time Kerry made this statement . Bush responded by saying his plan is to train the Irag troops so they can defend their country , support the re-build of Irag and more importantly provide security until the people of Iraq can have free elections.

Marriage, Abortion and Economy.

I support the a Constitutional Amendment to protect the marriage between man and woman. Marriage is fundamental element of our culture and nation.

Abortion – moral issue. Unfortunately it’s option to so that individuals can avoid being accountable to their ‘good time ‘ relationship. Life is life pure and simple. Adoption of a life is better destorying a life

Economy – no job. Need motivation . Work with handicap individuals for awhile. I think you will get motivate. Get re-train . You have a lot options because you are physically sound.

[Author]

Replies