« Bush Is Up In Election Results | Main | SoftVote Update Released. Download Now! »

August 02, 2004

Battleground Poll

Battleground Poll. As the election is drawing nearer the focus is on the battleground States. If you look at the map on softvote you can see by hovering over the battleground poll states who is ahead right now. Although this may change at any moment, many feel that the election will be won through careful campaigning in each battleground state. As the candidates go from one 2004 battleground election state to the other battle ground state the race gets tougher.

Visitors who are in the Battleground states please post your comments on the issues such as:

Which candidate is of better character?
Who will protect us better from terrorism?
Whose plan for the economy is better?

Posted by Tuck at August 2, 2004 01:34 PM

Comments

John Edwards knows first hand the importance of creating good paying jobs so that all American families can get ahead because he comes from a place where those jobs have disappeared under President Bush.

John Kerry has a plan to ensure all Americans have a right to health care that is affordable and accessible. John Edwards has been a leader in the fight for affordable, quality health care, fighting alongside Kerry to pass a Patients Bill of Rights and bring down the cost of prescription drugs.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 2, 2004 01:42 PM

President Bush and Vice President Cheney took a shot at John Edwards, suggesting the U.S. senator was ill-prepared to be vice president of the United States. The attack was a cheap shot: John Edwards has served the same amount of time in the Senate as George W. Bush served as governor of Texas when he was elected president. The Texas legislature only meets every other year and the governorship of the Lone Star State has long been considered one of the weakest positions of its kind in America. Add to it that Edwards has sat on the intelligence committee through the days before and after September 11th. You could argue that Edwards has more experience in key areas than George W. Bush did when he ran in 2000. Edwards also has more national security experience than Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter did when they became president.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 2, 2004 02:17 PM

Better character: President Bush
Better protection from terrorism: President Bush
Better plan for economy: President Bush

Posted by: Ron at August 2, 2004 04:15 PM

I live in Florida and will be voting for George Bush - John Kerry with Tom Daschle and Carl Levin wrote in 1998 to then President Clinton "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistant with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions(including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respong effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end it's weapons of mass destruction programs." Feb.18,1998. Kerry now acts as if Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction , when all the intelligence (including Russian and French ) stated otherwise. Kerry is not an honest man.

Posted by: Charles Hall at August 2, 2004 04:16 PM

Mr. Edwards can not be trusted. When he ran for his senate seat he told us in North Carolina that he was a moderate Democrat. That was just a lie. He became the fourth most liberal Senator and faied to represent the state of North Carolina as he promised. Additionally he ran for either Vice-President or President his entire term and ignored his responsibility to the people of North Carolina. He would not have won reelection to the Senate.

Posted by: LEWIS at August 2, 2004 06:39 PM

As far as bush, reagan, carter, clinton not having the experience of Edwards...those guys had actual governing experience (though I'm not sure if it helped Carter)...none for Edwards

Posted by: Steve at August 2, 2004 06:59 PM

Since I am one of those laid-off, maybe I should be for Kerry. In fact I am for the best person for the position. That person is G W Bush. I would suggest all go to http://www.swiftvets.com/ for information about Kerry's Military Service.
For info about the factual evidence behind either campaigns advertising claims go to http://www.factcheck.org/

Posted by: richard at August 2, 2004 07:16 PM

Better character: John Kerry
Better protection from terrorism: John Kerry
Better plan for economy: John Kerry

Posted by: djones at August 2, 2004 08:14 PM

I live in North Carolina.....Kerry assumed if he picked Edwards (after he trashed him first) that he (kerry) would win NC easily.

Very few that I know in NC support Edwards, we know first hand how he is and what he is about.....which is not much.

I was born and raised in Michigan....its a large democratic state, but the way Kerry has been lieing, the things in his past that have popped up, the way he throws nails at others (he had a 12 yr old girl give a speech at the dem covention and blasted Cheney for using bad language on the government floor, she said he needed a long time out) What about his using the word F**K on the senate floor? Several I know in Michigan.....have actually changed their mind...they might not like Bush as much as I do.....but they will take him over Kerry...that says alot.

He blasted Bush for his military service, but yet he also asked for deferment to Paris so as not to join then and did leave Veitnam after 4 months Voluntarily....

Me and Mine don't want either of them in NC or in the White House.....Edwards would have never made it back in, he doesn't DO anything for the people.

Shanna

Posted by: GreenEyes at August 2, 2004 10:03 PM

For those who waited 8 years of Clinton/Gore for the promises they made and those who waited 4 years of Bush/Cheney for the promises they made.... can anyone say privatization of social security?, I encourage you to look at Michael Badnarik. No, he will not win the election, but a vote for him says you are tired of the same old, same old. A vote for Mr. Badnarik tells the so-called small government Republicans to wake up. The Libertarian message is being heard. If not, why are the Republicans talking about elimination of the IRS? It's an empty promise to bring the disinterested Republicans back into the fold. Don't fall for the empty promise and make your voice heard with a vote for Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for president.

Posted by: Ken Bridges at August 2, 2004 10:58 PM

I find it amazing that there are people who are buying this fourth most liberal b.s. John Edwards is actrually the 39th most liberal Senator and is just a tad liberal than Lincoln Chafee, the Republican from Rhode Island.

If you all want real news that you will not get anywhere else, such as the story below, go to www.pimnews.com.

GEORGE BUSH REMEMBERED BY FORMER PROFESSOR

While Democrats, the national press, Michael Moore and the publishing board of this website have been keeping themselves busy scouring for his missing National Guard records, the years following his "tour of duty" have recieved little scrutiny. That is until last week when one of his old professors at the Harvard Business School blasted him in a scathing article.

Yoshihiro Tsurumi, a visiting professor of International Business at Harvard between 1972 and 1976, says Bush was one of 85 students he taught in a first year course titled, “Environment Analysis for Management.” Bush scored in the bottom ten percent of students in his class and was remembered for being flippant, arrogant, and a right-wing extremist.

As a harbinger of things to come, Bush equated FDR's New deal with socialism and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as an ememy of capitalism. According to Professor Tsumuri, Bush "didn’t stand out as the most promising student, but...he made it sure we understood how well he was connected."

Posted by: Paul at August 2, 2004 11:08 PM

President Bush and Vice President Cheney took a shot at John Edwards, suggesting the U.S. senator was ill-prepared to be vice president of the United States. The attack was a cheap shot: John Edwards has served the same amount of time in the Senate as George W. Bush served as governor of Texas when he was elected president. The Texas legislature only meets every other year and the governorship of the Lone Star State has long been considered one of the weakest positions of its kind in America. Add to it that Edwards has sat on the intelligence committee through the days before and after September 11th. You could argue that Edwards has more experience in key areas than George W. Bush did when he ran in 2000. Edwards also has more national security experience than Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter did when they became presiden

WHAT QULIFICATIONS DOES BEING A GOVERNOR IN A STATE LIKE TEXAS THAT HAS THE WEAKEST GOVENORSHIP IN THE UNION GIVE TO BE PRESIDENT NEVER THE LESS THE VICE PRESIDENT? GEORGE W. FAILED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOLKS PULL YOUR HEADS OUT OF THE SAND AND WAKE UP!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 2, 2004 11:14 PM

Better Character=George Bush, He has never waivered on his decision to go to Iraq, although Kerry has. Bush has not changed his mind on decisions such as stem-cell research, abortion, and gay-marriage. For those who support Kerry for stem-cell research, consider this stem-cells can be obtained from a foreskin, placenta, and unbilical chord. I just don't know why they have to kill people just to obtain stem cells. The information was aquired from a genetics conference in Manitowac, WI. Kerry also was "unpatriotic" when he threw away his medals (or as he said "ribbons") same thing, he clearly manipulates situations so he ends up on top.
Better protection=Pres. Bush. Does anyone think or wonder why the terrorists attack under Pres. Bush, the answer is that they are afraid of him because they know he will destroy them. If John Kerry get elected, they have it made in the shade, they do not fear him. His idea of national defense is to "hug" our enemies. While we hug them, they stick a knife in our backs.
Better economy=Pres. Bush. Evidence, WI is in need of thousands of workers. A telephone service provider needs hundreds of new employees. A trucking company needs hundreds of employees and manufacturing plants are expanding. A person like Edwards managed to help out the "little guy" and raise health care. How? he sues good doctors and medical suppliers. the result is his many homes, and the added cost at the pharmacy for insurance purposes(*ABC's JOHN STOSSLE "GIVE ME A BREAK")
That's all folks!

Posted by: Me at August 3, 2004 01:05 AM

On all three issues Bush is far ahead. The RNC will be putting out a chronology of Kerry's flip flops soon; go to rnc.org to view it! Man this guy is just unbelievable. Also once the ads for the Veitnam vets against Kerry get started I think the world will get to know Kerry a bit better than they do now. I am not sure how many people know that of the 23 vets that served with Kerry during veitnam only one is supporting Kerry in his campaign.

Posted by: Tom at August 3, 2004 01:20 AM

Swiftvets is a sham.
See for yourself, inconsitant information, and just plain misleading and slanderous.
Article 1 (Swiftvets website):
http://www.swiftvets.com/images/brothers.jpg
Article 2(Picture on originating site):
http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/images/KerryVietnamUnit.JPG
-
Thats misleading enough at it is. But not the end by any stretch.
(you'll have to watch a quick ad to get a free day pass to view the whole article on these next few. Well worth it tho. Check it out.)
So lets just get down to it.
"Behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are veteran corporate media consultant and Texas Republican activist Merrie Spaeth, who is listed as the group's media contact; eternal Kerry antagonist and Houston attorney John E. O'Neill, law partner of Spaeth's late husband, Tex Lezar; and retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, a cigar-chomping former Vietnam commander once described as "the classic body-count guy" who "wanted hooches destroyed and people killed."
--http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/05/04/swift/
"The hunting of John Kerry has now been contracted to a hired gun.

A private detective retained by "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" -- the Texas-based group seeking to discredit John Kerry's military record -- is contacting veterans who may have information about the incidents that led to Kerry's Vietnam decorations. According to a former Kerry crew member, several of the Massachusetts senator's old Navy comrades have refused to talk with the detective, a former FBI agent named Thomas Rupprath -- and some have complained that the detective tried to put damaging words in their mouths."
--http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/07/16/swift_boat_veterans/
And from this same article:
"Another theme promoted by the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" is that Kerry somehow exaggerated the injuries that led to his Purple Heart awards, or may even have inflicted them on himself. Kerry's first wound occurred on Dec. 2, 1968, which was the very first night he went on a swift boat patrol. Although several witnesses who were present that night remember that Kerry's arm was creased during a firefight with National Liberation Front guerrillas, a former commander who wasn't there has claimed that there was no report of enemy fire."
Here's the truth behind John Kerry's First Purple Heart.
--http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/04/17/kerry_purple/index.html
and heres an oppen letter from a vet responding to the previous article's writer.
--http://diodon349.com/Politics_2004/an_open_letter_to_douglas_brinklley_JK_purple_heart.htm

and what about this?:
"Kerry's biggest secret weapon this fall could be the Swift-boat crew he commanded in the Mekong Delta - or at least the 11 of the 12 who have endorsed him. They were a big presence here. Over coffee last Thursday, three of them - the Rev. David Alston of Columbia, S.C., Fred Short of North Little Rock, Ark., and Jim Wasser of Illinois - were in high spirits the morning after their former skipper was formally nominated as president.

All of them gave witness to Kerry's bravery. There is little doubting their affection for Kerry. (Short, who has spoken with a 12th crewmate who has denounced Kerry's leadership, said the crewmate is blinded by conservative partisanship.)"
--http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_ColumnistArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031777033653&path=!opinion&s=1037645509163

What do you all think, does that set the record straight enough? what else do you want to prove here? Wanna go through Kerry's votes in the senate? I'll do that too if need be.

READ THESE ARTICLES, AND GIVE KERRY A CHANCE.

Posted by: ThinkForYourself at August 3, 2004 01:41 AM

Oh, and most importantly, take a look at this:

"Kerry?s FITREPs are awash in dings, and some of the reports border on the adverse, particularly his combat FITREPs. The FITREPs convey significant performance problems and suggest problems in conduct, so much so that it is surprising that the campaign chose to release them. This may suggest that the FITREPs held from public view are even more adverse."
--http://www.swiftvets.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Fitreps
Now that you know the slander, look at the records.
--http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Fitness_Reports.pdf
Make sure you read it all the way, cause the dates aren't chronological. But I have no reason to believe there's anything missing. I think thats a false claim, take a look at the records there. He has an exceptional record, with none of the so-called "dings".

Please check your facts people, please. There's a lot at stake here, and we dont need to go spouting lies as facts. Or getting people confused by groups trying to swing our ignorance in a political firefight.

the rest of the records are here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html

Check it out for yourself.
GIVE KERRY A CHANCE.

Posted by: ThinkForYourself at August 3, 2004 02:25 AM

I am curious......why do people keep talking about Kerry and Edward's vast experience to run this country?

What have either of them ever done? How does 4 months and 12 days in Vietnam qualify Kerry to be Commander and Chief. Where do they get this supposed experience to fight terrorist? How do men who have voted AGAINST tax cuts, voted FOR higher taxes constantly, how do ones who want higher fuel tax, save the economy?

You think Kerry is a good leader? A good HERO? Why don't all of these men who KNOW him, served with him promote him?

Why are over 250 plus asking him for his FULL records (which he won't submit), yet he wanted Bush's full military records?

Read what the REAL HERO's have to say about Kerry....read how he sold them out...these are COMMANDERS, OFFICERS, CAPTAINS,..A REAR ADMIRAL

Go ahead...go read it...I don't want to waste space posting the whole thing...

http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=SwiftVetQuotes

Main site is -- http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php

Shanna

Posted by: GreenEyes at August 3, 2004 03:39 AM

Character-no question. One candidate is known for being a so-called flip flopper. He said that Hollywood represent our values.

The other has stayed the course even when he was criticized for doing so. Which brings me to who is better on terrorism. In Kerry's own words. I actually voted for the 87 billion (for the troops) before I voted against it. Kerry voted for the war in Iraq before he voted against it. He went to Vietnam saw that war is not pretty, he came home and disrespected his country. Don't tell me about honor. My grandfather fought in Iwo Jima and went to Viet Nam to do construction work.

Bush respects our country and the military. He understands that although war is not a nice solution it sometimes is necessary to protect our national interests. Some people in the Middle East don't like us because of who we are. We cannot change that. We can only do what we have done since our conception as a country, fight for our existence when it is threatened. We have a coalition. France, Germany and Russia had an interest in Saddam staying in power. The UN is known to have mismanaged the oil for food program. Who do I trust. No question GW.

Remember the innocent lives taken on 9/11. We have NOT had another attack on our soil since. Now while it is entirely possible we still could under GW, he is better fit to lead us through. Kerry voted to slash the intelligence budget. Look it up. Kerry's voting record speaks for itself. That is why he cannot stand on it. The #1 liberal in the Senate. Pro-abortion, anti-military, anti-traditional family.

The economy is getting better. I started my own business inn February of 2003, during the recession. By the grace of God. We are better off than we were before Bush got into office. Remeber the short recession I feel for the people who have been laid off. I have been there too, under Clinton's watch in '94. I have family there now, but everyone has the opprtunity to make it. It is the responsiblity of our neighbors, our churches and and our communities to help our brothers and sisters in need. For those in the top 1% that think Bush should raise taxes on anyone over $200,000 a year I say, live more modestly and donate to your cause. Don't take it away from hard working people who have achieved some financial success. Maybe I don't want to give my hard earned money to a Planned Parenthood. Maybe I want to help a neighbor instead. Bush, if able to stay in office and stay the course will be better for the economy.

Let's not make the same mistake we did with Bush Sr. Let GW continue what he started. Iraq will get better, the economy is improving and we are safer as a result.

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 3, 2004 04:15 AM

Fighting international terrorism is not and should not be the responsibility of only the USA. infact, there is no way we can do it alone. We need all our allies and obviously, the arrogant Bush who believed he could do it alone has realised that too. We need a president who can foster international support. We can find that in the Kerrry/Edward leadership

Posted by: Gordon at August 3, 2004 08:14 AM

If your medical bills are too high you can thank malpractice attorneys like Edwards. How's he gonna fix the problem? He IS the problem!

Posted by: pat from Akron, OH at August 3, 2004 09:41 AM

I have to wonder how someone who has been wealthy and pampered all of their life, someone who has never felt real hunger pains can relate to the common people in the United States? John Kerry and John Edwards are both filthy rich and they want me to believe they can relate to me?

I voted for President Bush in 2000 because when he gave a speech it felt as if he was talking directly to me. When Al Gore gave his speeches it sounded like he was talking down to me, as if I was nothing but a peon to be treated as such. I see the same thing in this election cycle. President Bush talking to the people and Senator Kerry talking down to the people. Guess who I am voting for?

Posted by: Wayne at August 3, 2004 10:10 AM

Since when is it the president's responsibility to provide jobs or health care to the american people? The job of the president is to protect us so that we can live our lives free. We need to pick a person who has a record of protecting us, not one that has consistently tried to undo everything that we have come to need in our fight against terrorism.

Besides, would you want to go to a VA hospital for treatment of anything? That's government run medicine.

Posted by: John at August 3, 2004 10:29 AM

John kerry is not qualified to be the president of the USA. He has lied about his military record, he has lied about his senate record,He,s lied about Iraq, He's even lied about his SUV's. He's lied abiut his homes etc,etc,etc,. How can any right thinking american even consider voting for a man who by his own words considers France , Germany and Russia our friends.

Posted by: aradams at August 3, 2004 04:18 PM

I live in Ohio and go to college in Florida for 7 months out of the year. (Soph)
Character: Bush
War on Terrorism: Bush
Economy: Bush

Posted by: Robert (Cincy,Pensacola) at August 3, 2004 05:29 PM

Better Character: George W. Bush
Protection from Terrorists: George W. Bush
Better Plan for Economy: George W. Bush

As Ron posted on 8/2,: John Kerry stated clearly during the Clinton years and since his campaign, has jumped on the anti-war bandwagon, labeling Bush a liar in order to get support from the anti-war democrats. Kerry is NOT an honest man. He is also riding on his military service that is not much more than propaganda and judging from the support (or more accurately, lack thereof) from his fellow swift boat crew, those that proudly serve our military are disgusted with him. I live in Michigan, one of the major battle ground states, although we have Democratic roots, we have in the past elected worthy Republicans. As of two days ago, SoftVote appears to have changed the color of Michigan from blue to red. I'm pretty sure it is going to stay that way.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 3, 2004 06:50 PM

A note to Tuck: John Edwards has nearly single handedly been responsible for the dramatic increase in health care costs and rise in health insurance premiums. Do your research. As a trial lawyer, he has repeatedly voted down health care reform, limits for lawsuits and most notoriously, won the largest single case regarding a child born with cerebral palsy - the award was not only astronomical, it opened the door (more like floodgates) of people to sue doctors for this condition - which has now been scientifically proven NOT to be caused by doctors! To this day, there are fewer and fewer ob/gyns because they cannot afford the malpractice insurance premiums because of John Edwards. Don't hold your breath that he is going to do a THING to make healtcare more affordable for anyone.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 3, 2004 06:56 PM

If you vote for Kerry, here is what you get: Turning military over to the UN< give France control over american politics, terror attacks, raising of taxes, welfare state, unstable leadership, lies, by the way - his way has offshoring of 57 companies - and kerry created a taxlaw last year to give his wife a break by NOT paying taxes, and so does edwards - he did the same, his anti-war stand and treason during vietnam, his anti-vote on the first gulf war, his plain and simple record of anti-military votes, his wife supports terrorists with the tides foundation, kerry also offered IRAN an apology on behalf of america, promising to make 'GOOD' if elected president - by e-mail on 8 Feb 2004. kerry will sent troops to palestine to fight against the israeli...go to www.kerry-04.com, and you can read up on all of the candidates, incl thereza heinz. she is evil, and when you know, how much financial support is given by her - you can understand why the terrorists like them, kerry will also do away with ALL borders, you will have gay marriage taken over, you will be persecuted if you believe in GOD, you will have abortions, and cloning left and right, incl partial birth abortion to assist 'junk science'. So - go ahead, and vote for kerry.
If you want decency, honesty, strength, leadership, faith based society, NO gay marriage etc....I would recommend to vote for President Bush. I know why I need President
Bush for four more years

Posted by: Inge at August 3, 2004 07:27 PM

This is a DIRECT response to Paul... You stated that Texas' governorship is considered one of the weakest in the nation as far as requirements of its leadership. I completely disagree.. Texas has an economy so large that if it were an independant nation, it would have the 11th largest economy in the entire world. Also John Edwards does sit on the intelligence committee... HOWEVER he has only had 8 meetings to attend and has missed 4 of them. John Kerry has missed 39 of the 48 he has been on. INCLUDING KEY meetings dealing with terrorism in the months before 9/11... Senate experience is a legislative position, not executive experience. Have you noticed how company vp's are called Executives, and not legislators? They run things... they don't vote (or in john kerry's case, NOT VOTE.. seeing how he's missed 2/3 of all votes in this years congress) Gov. Bush ran texas.. and if you don't think he did a good job at it, ask texans ;-) He was the first Gov. to EVER be re-elected in the state... John Kerry needs to keep representing the liberal in New England.. He is not the kind of man I want representing the entire nation....

This is a man that has voted over 350 times to raise or NOT lower taxes... The total amount of his tax votes would result in an 8,000,000,000,000 increase.. thats 8 TRILLION dollars....

He's voted 6 times to NOT ban Partial birth abortion...

He's voted AGAINST funding abstinence programs in the schools, but yet voted FOR funding the morning after pill, for free distribution in high schools...

In his opening lines at the DNC, he claimed he started his career in the political spectrum by fighting for womens rights and crimes against.... BUT he voted AGAINST the laci's law... Which stated that a crime against a pregnant woman which resulted in injury or death of the unborn child was also a crime against the child... I have NEVER spoken to a person that didn't support this law... not a single person... John Kerry DOES NOT support it....

He goes on t.v. and tells the world how irresponsible that it would be for a senator to vote against funding the troops (he even claims he'll vote for it if the first admendmant which woudl roll back taxes for the 200,000 class failed to pass)...he voted AGAINST funding them... and then later says he's proud of his vote...

Take a look at his sponsorship on the bills in congress... 95% of them are honoring figures in america... nothing landmark, nothing needed, nothing that helps this nation function...

Those are some facts... and the final fact, Since George Bush took office, 1.1 million jobs have been lost (not counting july's job market)... If John Kerry were a leader, he would have crafted some kind of a package to stimulate the economy and create the jobs that have been lost... but if you look at what has happened, he's RAN from it.. only criticizing every step of the run away... George Bush had a comprehensive plan and its worked wonderfully, pulling us out of a recession and creating 775,000 jobs in the past 3 months (not counting july), and also... in June 450,000 jobs were created but do to seasonal indexing, it was lowered to 112,000...

Please I urge you all to vote for George Bush...

Posted by: Justin Anderson at August 3, 2004 08:24 PM

Re: pimnews.com - their lead headline is a complete lie. Nancy Reagan has publically come out and said she is "150% behind George W. Bush's reelection". Further, she had no such negative reactions to the use of former President Reagan's likeness in any Republican ads. This is obviously a panicked bunch of liberals knowing full well that Ronald Reagan was a tremendous president and a force to be reckoned with. Anyone upholding his values and principals is a threat to Liberals everywhere.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 3, 2004 08:27 PM

For those of you who think Kerry would offer an apology to Iran I have this. . .

Who criticized the Clinton Administration because it's sanctions on Iran were too harsh and impeded an oil pipeline?

You guessed it, "Tricky" Dick Cheney. So much for a patriot.

Posted by: Paul at August 3, 2004 09:03 PM

BUSH LIED ABOUT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
BUSH DID NOTHING WHEN TOLD THAT THE FIRST TOWER HAD BEEN HIT - BUSH DID NOTHING WHEN THE SECOND TOWER HAD BEEN HIT - BUSH ALONG WITH HIS FATHER; THE SAUDIS AND CHENEY OWN HALLIBURTON WHICH IS MAKING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS UPON MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THE WAR IN IRAQ - BUSH HAS NO CONSCIENCE; NO BRAIN AND NO HEART - HE DID NOT WIN THE PRESIDENCY LAST TIME HE ANNOINTED HIMSELF! HE HAD HIS FRIEND DESTROY THOUSANDS OF BLACK VOTES IN FLORIDA TO ASSURE THAT HE WOULD WIN - DID YOU EVER LOOK IN THIS MAN'S EYES??? THEY ARE VACANT! LIGHTS ARE OUT IN THE CONTROL TOWER AND NO ONE IS HOME - HE'S SCARY.

Posted by: Marilyn at August 3, 2004 09:52 PM

Isn't it amazing that the five states with the lowest SAT scores are Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, Wyoming, and Alabama. What do they have in common? Solid Bush states.

The five highest SAT scores?
Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New York. All solid Kerry states.

The two that rose the fastest?
Virginia and NC - both have become battleground states.

Makes you think (unless you are a Bush supporter in a red states).

Posted by: Paul at August 3, 2004 11:15 PM

Hands down, all three questions are answered with one simple word: DUBYA!

How can it possibly make sense to vote in Kerry who is screaming for socialized medicine, while dragging Edwards along behind him who has caused us to even CONSIDER socialized medicine! Talk about two cronies! Edwards screws us so Kerry can save us! PUH-LEESE!

Posted by: nicolle at August 3, 2004 11:45 PM

ANYONE WHO HAS HAD ANY QUESTION OR SPECULATES ON WHAT JOHN KERRY AND JOHN EDWARDS MIGHT DO WHEN THEY GET TO THE WHITE HOUSE, CHECK OUT THIS WEBSITE AND SEE HOW ALL OF THE SENATORS, AND HOUSE MEMBERS VOTED ON THE KEY ISSUES AND THEN DECIDE WHO'S REALLY TRYING TO HELP THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. HERE YOU WILL FIND THE ACTUAL BILLS THAT OUR SENATORS AND REPRESENATIVES VOTE ON AND HOW THEY VOTED. TAKE A GOOD AND I MEAN A REALLY GOOD LOOK AND THE RE-EVALUATE YOUR POSITION.

Posted by: james at August 3, 2004 11:50 PM

what about bush's lies? can we not say that he is not fit to be president? he's got a lot more lies than people even say Kerry does.
Check em out:
http://bushcampaignlies.blogspot.com/2004/02/ground-rules.html

Posted by: ThinkForYourself at August 4, 2004 12:28 AM

BUSH BETTER: The core of a man's CHARACTER is in his actions not his words. I'm hearing a lot of Kerry "said" and Bush "did" lately. What about you?

BUSH BETTER: Terrorist organizations have all been throwing their freaking dishadasha's lately don't you agree? Since when has Pakistan been so eager to help us? Bush has stirred things up over there and things are getting done. It's gonna take a while but things are getting done. It's about freaking time no?

BUSH BETTER: As far as the economy; can someone please tell Kerry to go run for president of freaking Canada? They would really like him over there. Socialize healthcare!? Is he nuts? What the hell happened to individual responsibility? I bet there more people in America who have cell phones than people who have health insurance. Where are your priorities America? And please, pleASE, PLEASE tell me how it makes sense to anyone that a damn TRIAL ATTORNEY IS GOING TO LOWER THE COST OF YOUR HEALTH CARE.. John Edwards is the problem to begin with..

WHAT DOES ONE HAVE TO SAY? How should one word it? What catch phrases do you have to use to get it through the thick, hard, obtuse skulls of anyone voting for Kerry? Him and his secret plans to fix the war and the economy. Tell us Kerry, what is the freaking plan? Wait... Fix the war? Ohh no, I'm thinking like them now,

HEY, YOOHOO!!!! WAR IS WAR KERRY, WAKE THE HELL UP! THERE IS NOTHING SOFT AND PRETTY ABOUT WAR KERRY. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE, CIVILIAN AND MILITARY ALIKE. YOU KERRY, ARE SUGESTING THAT WE WITHDRAWL SUPPORT WHEN OUR TROOPS NEED IT MOST. THAT'S JUST HOW YOU PEOPLE ARE. WHEN BODY PARTS START FLYING APART AND PEOPLE START DYING YOU GET SCARED AND RUN YOUR YELLOW ASS OFF JUST LIKE YOU DID IN NAM AND AS A RESULT MORE FREAKING PEOPLE DIE MAN!!!!! WAKE THE HELL UP! AND BY THE WAY MR. KERRY, TO SPEND 12 HOURS ALIVE IN NAM IS HEROIC SO I TIP MY HAT TO YOUR FOUR MONTH AND TWELVE DAY TOUR OF DUTY BUT, THE PURPLE HEARTS MAN. AT VERY LEAST SHOW US YOUR MEDICAL RECORDS OR MAYBE A MISSING FINGER OR BIG TOE OR SOMETHING. HELL I'D SETTLE FOR A DAMN SCAR BUT GIVE US SOMETHING TO WORK WITH HERE PLEASE. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE THE FREAKING MEDALS ANYMORE FOR THE LOVE OF SAINT PETE!

Fix the economy? Wait did I miss something? What the hell is wrong with the economy anyway? Can someone please explain it to me?

You know Kerry is going to put an end to global warming and the green house effect, right? Maybe he can hop in his little green space suit and go lasso a rope around the freaking sun and take it further away or something. I think that Kerry should change his campaign strategy to something a little more like this;

When it rains, call on Kerry, he'll make it stop. When it's too cold outside, call on Kerry, he'll summon his super human laser vision and heat up your town. When you're late for work, call on Kerry, he'll whisk you away on his shoulders and fly you straight to your job. When you go vote, VOTE FOR SUUUPERR KERRY! (Paid for by the Kerry/Edwards foundation for alleged heroic dumb-a**** who think they can run for president)

I'm tired of being eloquent, tactful, and diplomatic!

(Edited)

Posted by: Carlos at August 4, 2004 04:38 AM

This is a post from another blog and it says it all for all of the message boards

Hello Folks,

I am a Bush/Cheney supporter, through and through. When I read or hear the rantings of democrats who rabidly lash out at our president, all I hear is the same lunatic claims made by the likes of Moore. Only a handful of bogus claims, spouted over and over, ad infinitum, by mind-numbed miscreants who would believe ANYTHING that supported their malignant world view.

Contrasting that, each time I hear or read criticisms of Kerry/Edwards, they are new every day. It's as if for every three anti-Bush claims repeated a hundred times, there are three hundred anti-Kerry claims repeated only once. It would appear that Kerry's negatives outweigh Bush's by a hundred to one. We just don't repeat the same tired accusations as much as the micro-brains in the democrat/socialist party.

John

Posted by: Phillip at August 4, 2004 02:59 PM

A handful of claims? Phillip, you must be jesting. I actually counted 257 lies told by dubya just on one website. Much of the same for Cheney as well.

No, we are not for a socialist America. We are against the semi-totalitarian state your fascist party is trying to create. I can give you about 500-600 reasons not to vote for Bush easily - as a matter of fact I will. In two weeks, go to pimnews.com and check out the database of lies on it. It's taking so damn long because there are so many of them! It's unbeleivable. After working on this project, I am fully convinved now, more than ever, that this is the worst President of the last 100 years and may possibly be the worst of all time.

Posted by: Paul Pimentel at August 4, 2004 05:03 PM

Posted by: Paul at August 3, 2004 09:03 PM

BUSH LIED ABOUT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
BUSH DID NOTHING WHEN TOLD THAT THE FIRST TOWER HAD BEEN HIT - BUSH DID NOTHING WHEN THE SECOND TOWER HAD BEEN HIT

You're an idiot. If you'd look at the facts you'd see that Europe along with the Clinton admin. AND KERRY all said there were WMD in Iraq.

Seriously, what are you thinking? Did nothing when the towers were destroyed? I can't see how DESTROYING A MAJOR PART OF THE TERRORIST NETWORK IS NOT DOING ANYTHING. You're stupid, shut up and die.

And for all you morons who think this war is going nowhere... you obviously have no idea what happens during war; people die. And no, the soldier's parents aren't the ones sending them to war, soldiers are VOLUNTEERS, and they know what they're getting into. Kerry's a stupid fool afraid of taking a piece of shrapnel in his shoulder, so he runs back home to safety... HMM, sounds like a GREAT leader to me, running away from everything... during war, bad things happen, but the end result is the protection of millions of lives around the world.

If you're for Kerry, you're voting for the murder of unborn children, the ability for terrorist networks to grow and attack us, the right for gay couples to marry, and the raising of taxes for everyone.

Think about what you're saying and who's getting your vote, fools.

Posted by: Corsair at August 4, 2004 05:07 PM

Paul,

I went to your Web-site and the first allegation of lies referenced the war. If Bush lied then the U.N. lied which may be why they did not act on holding Saddam accountable. Edwards and Kerry lied. Clinton lied. So let's stop kidding ourselves. We can fabricate all we want but the truth remains, there has not been another attack on our soil to date. That is a miracle. The terrorists have to be right only once. Saddam funded the suicide bombers families. He's gone. Libya has rolled over. Pakistan is cooperating. This is good for the world.

Your sight is offering money for information on Bush. Are you guys that hateful, direspectful and blinded by your obsession with getting rid of Bush? Most Americans trust Bush before Kerry.
Sources like yours and Michael Moore are bad for America and frankly dangerous propoganda.

To Paul there has been a population shift from the high tax, high crime and high streess of the cities in the northeast, wonder why?

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 5, 2004 02:32 AM

Here's a list of deseptions from Bush's own mouth about Iraq.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program."
Source: President Bush, Prime Minister Blair Discuss War on Terrorism, White House (7/17/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program. The statement also failed to mention weeks of intensive inspections conducted directly before the war in which United Nations inspectors found no sign whatsoever of any effort by Iraq to resume its nuclear program.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents."
Source: President Talks to Troops in Qatar, White House (6/5/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Here's what -- we've discovered a weapons system, biological labs, that Iraq denied she had, and labs that were prohibited under the U.N. resolutions."
Source: President Bush, Russian President Putin Sign Treaty of Moscow, White House (6/1/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
Source: Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, White House (5/29/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed."
Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because by referencing the September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledged that "We?ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more."
Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was linked to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."
Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship. This statement also was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations."
Source: President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"But the risk of doing nothing, the risk of the security of this country being jeopardized at the hands of a madman with weapons of mass destruction far exceeds the risks of any action we may be forced to take."
Source: President Meets with National Economic Council, White House (2/25/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner."
Source: President's Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it asserted that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship. The statement also was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"All the world has now seen the footage of an Iraqi Mirage aircraft with a fuel tank modified to spray biological agents over wide areas. Iraq has developed spray devices that could be used on unmanned aerial vehicals with ranges far beyond what is permitted by the Security Council. A UAV launched from a vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland."
Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it claimed that Iraq?s UAVs were intended and able to spread biological weapons, including over the United States, but failed to mention that the U.S. government agency most knowledgeable about UAVs and their potential applications, the Air Force?s National Air and Space Intelligence Center, had the following view: the "U.S. Air Force does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological (CBW) agents."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"And the United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, is resolved to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi regime. September the 11th, 2001, the American people saw what terrorists could do by turning four airplanes into weapons. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons."
Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because by referencing the September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledged "We?ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." This statement also was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing terrorists who would attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario, and Iraq appeared to be "drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" against the United States for fear of providing cause for war.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner."
Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it asserted that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing terrorists who would attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario, and Iraq appeared to be "drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" against the United States for fear of providing cause for war. This statement also was misleading because by referencing the September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledge that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought aluminum tubes for use in its nuclear weapons program, failing to mention that the government?s most experienced technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were "poorly suited" for this purpose.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing weapons to al Qaeda. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought uranium from Africa despite the fact that the CIA expressed doubts about the credibility of this claim in two memos to the White House, including one addressed to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. CIA Director George Tenet also warned against using the claim in a telephone call to Ms. Rice's deputy. In addition, the statement fails to mention that State Department intelligence officials also concluded that this claim was "highly dubious."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The [Iraqi] report also failed to deal with issues which have arisen since 1998, including: . . . attempts to acquire uranium and the means to enrich it."
Source: Letter to Cheney/Senate, White House (1/20/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought to acquire uranium despite the fact that the CIA expressed doubts about the credibility of this claim in two memos to the White House, including one addressed to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. CIA Director George Tenet also warned against using the claim in a telephone call to Ms. Rice's deputy. In addition, the statement fails to mention that State Department intelligence officials also concluded that this claim was "highly dubious."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Today the world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq. A dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people must not be allowed to produce or possess those weapons. We will not permit Saddam Hussein to blackmail and/or terrorize nations which love freedom."
Source: President Bush Speaks to Atlantic Youth Council, CNN (11/20/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint."
Source: President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"He's had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates."
Source: Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"He said he wouldn't have chemical weapons, he's got them."
Source: Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"This is a man who has had Al Qaida connections. I want you to think about a scenario in which he becomes the arsenal and the training grounds for shadowy terrorists so that he can attack somebody who (sic) hates and not leave any fingerprints behind. He is a threat."
Source: Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was linked to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Not only has he got chemical weapons, but I want you to remember, he's used chemical weapons."
Source: Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"It's a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat."
Source: Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"We not only know he's got chemical weapons, but incredibly enough he's used chemical weapons."
Source: President Talks Tax Cuts and Homeland Security in Iowa, White House (11/4/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"He said he wouldn't have chemical weapons, he's got them."
Source: Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them . . . . And not only that, [he would] like nothing more than to hook up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like Al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come do his dirty work, and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his action."
Source: Iraq Must Disarm Says President in South Dakota Speech, White House (11/3/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing Al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario, and the intelligence community believed that Iraq appeared to be "drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" against the United States for fear of providing cause for war.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"[Saddam Hussein is] a man who not only has chemical weapons, but he has used chemical weapons against some of his neighbors."
Source: Iraq Must Disarm Says President in South Dakota Speech, White House (11/3/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"This [Saddam Hussein] is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/28/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was linked to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."
Source: President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was linked to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it evoked a lethal threat to millions of individuals from Iraq's biological weapons but failed to acknowledge that the U.S. intelligence community had reported on Iraq's biological weapons capabilities with qualifiers and lack of specificity. For example, the October 2002 NIE estimated simply that Iraq had "some" BW agents that were lethal and incapacitating, "including anthrax."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The Iraqi regime . . . is seeking nuclear weapons."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produced chemical and biological weapons. Yet Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it claimed that Iraq?s UAVs were intended and able to spread chemical or biological weapons, including over the United States, but failed to mention that the U.S. government agency most knowledgeable about UAVs and their potential applications, the Air Force?s National Air and Space Intelligence Center, had the following view: the "U.S. Air Force does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological (CBW) agents."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it asserted that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought aluminum tubes for use in its nuclear weapons program, failing to mention that the government?s most experienced technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were "poorly suited" for this purpose.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Saddam Hussein . . . is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"If the Iraq regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than one year."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it failed to provide the context that the U.S. intelligence community believed that Iraq probably would not be able to make a nuclear weapon until near the end of the decade.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it starkly evoked a threat of Iraq detonating a nuclear bomb when there was deep division in the intelligence community on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"[Iraq] possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"In defiance of the United Nations, Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
Source: President: Iraqi Regime Danger to America is "Grave and Growing", White House (10/5/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The regime has the scientists and facilities to build nuclear weapons, and is seeking the materials needed to do so."
Source: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House (10/2/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death."
Source: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House (10/2/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"We know the designs of the Iraqi regime. In defiance of pledges to the U.N., it has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons."
Source: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House (10/2/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq."
Source: George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was linked to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons."
Source: George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material, could build one within a year."
Source: President Bush Discusses Iraq with Congressional Leaders, White House (9/26/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it failed to provide the context that the U.S. intelligence community believed that Iraq probably would not be able to make a nuclear weapon until near the end of the decade.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons."
Source: President Bush Discusses Iraq with Congressional Leaders, White House (9/26/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take."
Source: Address to the United Nations General Assembly, White House (9/12/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon."
Source: Address to the United Nations General Assembly, White House (9/12/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought aluminum tubes for use in its nuclear weapons program, failing to mention that the government?s most experienced technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were "poorly suited" for this purpose.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year."
Source: Address to the United Nations General Assembly, White House (9/12/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it failed to provide the context that the U.S. intelligence community believed that Iraq probably would not be able to make a nuclear weapon until near the end of the decade.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The first time we may be completely certain he has a --nuclear weapon is when, God forbids, he uses one."
Source: Address to the United Nations General Assembly, White House (9/12/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it starkly evoked a threat of Iraq detonating a nuclear bomb when the intelligence community was deeply divided on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors."
Source: Address to the United Nations General Assembly, White House (9/12/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing terrorists who would attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario, and Iraq appeared to be "drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" against the United States for fear of providing cause for war.

Posted by: ThinkForYourself at August 5, 2004 02:40 AM

I plan on voting for Kerry and Edwards because it is the right thing for our Nation. I hate to be manipulated into being fearful all of the time just because Bush needs a bump in the polls.

I am near retirement age and I need to make sure that the economy is strong and that we have Social Security. I am sure that we are going down the wrong path with Bush!

Posted by: Beverly at August 5, 2004 09:19 AM

Looks like you NRA backers better get ready to give your guns to your kids so they can take them over to Baghdad.

From pimnews.com

ADMINISTRATION SECRETLY PREPARES FOR MILITARY DRAFT

It seems that the Bush Administration is, once again, not being honest with the American people. If you are between the ages of 18 to 30 or are a parent or guardian with children between the ages of 18 and 30, your vote in this upcoming election will be as crucial to your life and your child’s life as it is to the future direction of this nation.

The administration has already appropriated funding for a newly built national draft which it will roll out after the November 2nd election. The Pentagon has already begun recruiting to fill 10,350 new draft board positions and 11,070 appeals boards slots around the country. Some of the details were unintentionally leaked by the selective service at www.sss.gov/perf_planfy2004.html.

The Bush Administration is desperate to address its dilemma in filling the need for new troops in the U.S. military. Donald Rumsfeld thought he could fight war on a shoe-string budget and his error has now cost us the lives of 1,000 of our fellow countrymen. With military moral and retention rates the lowest it has been in years, this Administration needs to find more soldiers to fight its war in Iraq. Few are volunteering and a draft will be its only solution.

Posted by: Paul Pimentel at August 5, 2004 11:02 AM

ThinkForYourself:

You bore me. Except for the utter irony in your screen name. Yawn.

Beverly,
Imagine what would happen if one of the buildings that the threats were issued about had been hit and the Bush admin had said it issued a "secret" alert because they are tired of taking the conspiracy theorists heat that the terror threats are only for poll bumps. You'd have his head. None of us can deny that Bush can't win for losing. He is the epitome of Catch-22. Also, if you are concerned with your retirement and coming drug costs, I would remind you that you can blame John Edwards and his ilk for the pinch we all feel.

Posted by: nicolle at August 5, 2004 01:35 PM

Paul,
Maybe you should do a little research before you make accusations about a draft. The talk of a draft was in no way started by the Bush administraton. Senator Hillary Rodam-Clinton has been screaming the loudest about a draft and Oh by the way Senator Kerry has said he would deal with Iraq by sending MORE Troops Said it in his DNC acceptance speech. Now if he is going to send MORE troops then where are they coming from? Dig a little deeper into your research and you will find the Democrats are behind the draft not the Republicans.

Think for yourself, you obviously can't do just that you have to regurgitate stuff you have read from conspiricy websites. It's all the same, cut and paste. I'm sure I could post 10 Kerry outright lies to every one of your so called Bush mis-leading the public.

I for one am glad that we invaded Iraq, my problem with it is that we are giving it back to them. It's high time we started keeping what we earned with the blood of American soldiers. We would then own France, Germany, Japan, and the Philipines.

Think for yourself, I will take on your first lie that you said President Bush made.
I strongly believe that he was trying to reconstitue his Nuclear weapons program. How is this misleading? It's his opinion, it's what he "Strongly believed", what makes it misleading? If I were to say "I strongly believe you are an idiot, would that be misleading? It is an opinion. And oh by the way, you and your friends at your hate Bush websites don't have access to highly sensitive information, "Unless of course you are Sandy Berger" Hmm I wonder why the LIBERAL PRESS has given him a free pass on Stealing National Secrets? Anyway, most of you just spew out M. Moores garbabe and hope some stupid goon will believe it. Just remember Garbage in Garbage out.

Posted by: Wayne at August 5, 2004 03:04 PM

I have a kid. Bush gets my vote, because in the grand scheme of things, we are fighting for our very survival. I get it. GWB gets it. So does the kid. Thank God he believes in something bigger than himself.

Posted by: Webkabob at August 5, 2004 03:58 PM

I have many questions for Bush supporters: Do you not ever think of things such as the economy, the environment, FUNDING education, your civil rights, that we are the number one hated nation in the world, that we now have millions more terrorist wanting to kill us since we invaded (PREEMPTIVELY) Iraq on false intelligence? Or do you just think he has a really nice wife and the fact he cannot put a sentence together that has more than three words, means he is a straight talker (and what does that really mean when you are so incurious and unwilling to listen and learn?) Also, for those of you who are casting a religious vote -- Think about it, A conservative Christian is a contradiction in terms. Christ wasn't a conservative. He fed the hungry simply because they were hungry. He didn't require that they go to work first. He healed the sick, simply because they were sick. He didn't push them into an insurance company, or let the drug companies gouge them on prices. Jesus was a liberal; Herod was the conservative. WAKE UP and be something your President is not -- HONEST

Posted by: Becky at August 5, 2004 07:05 PM

Wayne,

Yet again, another idiotic right winger that I will have to tear down and humiliate.

Last I checked, the selective service was not run by Democrats. It's called an Execuive Department which belongs under the executive branch of the government. Who, Wayne, do you think runs that? The Democrats? The supposed "liberal" media (anyone who believes that is a complete fool).

Your second point (if that's what you call it) is inaccurate. it was started by Chuck Hagel, a conservative republican from Nebraska. He did so to bring attention to the fact that the entire military was made up of kids who come from low socio-economic backgrounds in places with few job prospects. If they have to fight, why not the rest of us? It's interesting how Hillary Clinton has become the default scapegoat for any missing fact a right winger cannot find to substantiate their arguments.

Now for the "strongly believes" comment. It is one thing to go to war when you know there is a threat of imninent danger. It is another to go to war when you supposedly "strongly believe." I strongly believe China will someday be a threat. So is North Korea. Right wingers do not. Why? because the people who do the thinking for them see a huge market for their products. I for one, agree that isolating Cuba is a good thing. But who is thre greater threat? Cuba or China?

Oh yes, Sandy Berger. I'm glad you mentioned that. I find it ironic that you say the liberal press has given him a free pass on stealing national secrets. Just yesterday he was cleared by a government panel made up of people from this administration. I bet you didn't hear too much about it, did you?

But guess what else happened yesterday? Katherine harris talked about a terrorist during a speech in sarasota that got caught on tv. It seems it was info she got that she wasn't supposed to release. Well, it looks like the guy uinder investigation just suddenly disappeared. Oh yes, and another thing - Richard Shelby, a Republican Senator from Alabama, gave away the details of a secret intelligence briefing to none other than Fox News - 10 minutes after the intelligence committee had finished meeting. This happened a month ago.

People, we do not go to war on suppositions. We do not go to war on information we know is flawed intelligence. The facts speak for themselves.

I am patiently awaiting your response. I know it will take some time to lick off your wounds.

Posted by: Paul at August 5, 2004 07:20 PM

Hello. I am a 13 year old boy. My take on all of the things that I have read from various sites and e-mails is as follows: John Kerry is a liar. I say this because from his crew on his swift boat, he talks as if all of them thinks he was a great fighter, an awesome "hero". lol kinda like some of the people I play as in video games. To back this all up he does actually have some members of his crew say this. NOT ALL, some actually 2!!! 2 out of 23 are supporting him. Some of his crew members were in a commercial or 2, and what did they do? They were so outraged that Kerry put them in there, that they DEMANDED to be taken out. Yeash, thats a little harsh you would think. Unless Kerry actually was not a "hero" that he was a usless blob of flesh on the boat. Also, about this thing of Cheney being a "potty mouth" for saying the f word to a person that was being ungodly rude. Ya, I guess that it wasn't a great thing but why do you have to talk about it like he's the devil??? What about the fact that when Teresa Heinz Kerry went past a group of protesters for Bush saying "4 more years" she said, "What another 4 years of hell??!!" Thats just o so much better than what Cheney did. PULEEZ! There are many other things that I think makes GWB a better president than Kerry, but I just want you to think about the things i said.

Posted by: A Kid for Bush at August 5, 2004 09:52 PM

In regards to entry by "Chris" deseptions is written "deceptions". In regards to "thinkforyourself", social security was never supposed to work! Do you know that people were never supposed to live long enough to collect?? I doubt it. Economics 1 taught us that cruel reality. However, with new medicine and better healthcare, people are living past the expectancy for eligibility for S.S. Also consider the baby boom, large numbers are retiring at the same time. We have never been prepared to deal with the problem. So your reasoning behind your vote has no basis. If someone is to blame it is the past presidents, who have not touched the problem and left it for future generations to deal with. I often wonder why the people who are republicans are looked down as being stupid, but those who are democrats are the ones who do not ask questions, find the real answers (not based on the media) or spell correctly. Case and Point is the above paragraph. Many democrats are misinformed and take their cue from the news. Another, "I invented the internet" ~Al Gore. "I did not have relations with that woman (pause) Monica Lewinsky" ~Clinton(UNDER OATH!, BUSH NEVER LIED UNDER OATH!). I think all democrats would be wise to follow Zell Miller, a Georgian Democrat. As a member of the Democratic Party, he does not believe in Kerry/Edwards. Republicans dumb, I think not. For all those who worry about the economy, when the baby boomers retire in a few years, there will be so many jobs; there will be a surplus of jobs. If Kerry is elected, he will play that as his doing. Just wait he'll do it IF he is elected
GOD BLESS AMERICA AND GEORGE W. BUSH

Posted by: 007 at August 5, 2004 11:04 PM

Tennessee: Take a look at this. Why???

Tennessee: Unabashed Racist Leads Tenn. GOP Primary

Hart, 60, vows if elected to work toward keeping "less favored races" from reproducing or immigrating to the United States. In campaign literature, Hart contends that "poverty genes" threaten to turn the United States into "one big Detroit."

Posted by: d. jones at August 6, 2004 01:18 AM

I'm from Nevada, swing state and future dumpsite of the nation (like any one or two men can stop it...) I myself am something of a left-leaning moderate, and I'm voting for John Kerry.

Which candidate is of better character?
Ugh...two politicians...tough call... I might give it to Kerry.

Who will protect us better from terrorism?
I honestly think John Kerry has an edge here, he was deemed "Bush-lite" by Howard Dean, and I think that might be what we need to track them down in the short term and defuse the conditions that breed their overzelous hate in the long run.

Whose plan for the economy is better?
I really don't know here...the US economy is its own force in so far as I can tell. Bush doesn't seem to have one, and Kerry's doomed to failure in any attempt to give the country universal health care. However, I like his push for alternative energy. Maybe oil jobs will fall short and alternative might or might not meet up with replacing them... I don't know, I can't see the future. So, this I give to neither.

Personal View: Barack Obama kicks both their a****.

Posted by: Eric at August 6, 2004 01:56 AM

Thinkforyourself:
I personally saw Hillary Clinton give a speech and demand, and I do mean demand that the White House look into starting up the draft again, standing next to her was Ted Kennedy so I doubt that you can claim us right wingers made that one up. It's all a political move anyway, gripe about not enough men to fight the war and start talking about instituting the draft and what happens? It gets the draft age votes in the democrates pocket. We have more than enough service men to handle the situation in Iraq. Maybe some day you can get with some active duty members of the Military who went to Iraq and ask them their feelings. I have and do on a daily basis. Except for the few exceptions in mostly the Army everyone supports what is going on and are more than willing to lay down their lives for the cause. The ones that don't are the ones who went into the military for the sole reason of getting an education. I have heard it before and will hear it again. I didn't sign up to fight, I signed up for an education. What in the world did you think was going to happen if you signed the papers to go into the Military? I for one knew what I was getting into and would gladly do it again if the need arises.

As far as your information about Sandy Berger, well I saw the same news item and I also saw one that came out later stating that the information was FALSE and that he was still under investigation. Who do you believe? The man knowingly stole Highly Secret documents and destroyed them and so far the LIBERAL media (CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC) have pretty much turned a blind eye to it. You are a fool if you don't think those media outlets are liberal. Go to mrc.org and check it out.

Let's talk a minute about John Kerry's honesty.
If you read on his own website where he posted his military experience it says that when he earned his bronze star for bravery the warrent said that he was wounded from a mine explosion and a member of another boats crew was thrown overboard. He went back and from the bow of the boat pulled him aboard while bleeding from the right arm. Amazingly enough he received his third purple heart for this action, but the informaion provided (which by the way has been conviently removed from his sight since this was brought up) stated he recieved the purple heart for shrapnel wounds to his buttocks and a CONTUSION to his right arm. I'm not a doctor, but from everything I have seen a contusion is a bruise and they don't bleed. I could be wrong, but I strongly feel that's the case.

We were 100% right to go into Iraq no matter what you might think. Sadam was and is a madman and If we did not go in and something terrible happened to the US and it was traced back to him EVERYBODY yourself included would be calling for President Bushs head.

The fact that he harbored terrorist and paid money to the families of every suicide bomber in palastine for their loved one killing the zionist means he was supporting terrorism and President Bush put every nation on alert when he said "We will pre-emptivly attack any nation that harbour terrorist, you are either with us or against us."

I am glad that we were not blessed with Al Gore the last four years, who knows what asprin factories might have been bombed.

Stepping off my high horse now.

Posted by: Wayne at August 6, 2004 12:27 PM

Uh oh. Jobs report looks really bad. Especially considering that it's summer and this is not supposed to happen.

August is Bush's month to rally. This will be a huge and dramatic setback, unless he can scare up more terror alerts.

Posted by: Paul Pimentel at August 6, 2004 12:50 PM

Remember that 87 billion dollar plan Kerry and Bush keep mentioning? If you want the truth, here it is.

The 87 billion dollar plan first had Tri-Med insurance benefits and medical aid for troops and White House officials wrote to the senate saying Bush would veto the bill if the medical benefits for troops weren't taken out. Kerry voted FOR the package with medical benefits, and then when it had to be revised because Bush was going to veto, Kerry voted against the package that didn't include medical benefits. Kerry did not want to vote for a package that did NOT include medical benefits.

Don't let bush fool you, he wanted to veto it.

All of these commercials saying "Kerry didn't want to fund troops" is just distraction from the truth, Bush didn't want to fund it in the first place if it included medical benefits or insurance.

Who's the flip flopper now?!

Posted by: Jason at August 6, 2004 07:57 PM

007,

It was Paul the liberal who mis-spelled deceptions, although I am guilty of typos, without spell check.

Paul, don't you worry about the job numbers. Unemployment is at 5.5% right where it was when your boy Clinton re-elected. Let's not be over zealous.

Things will change from day to day and those who have little interest in the election will make up their minds in November. At least you stand for something,even if I disagree. The so-called independents/swing voters don't realize what is on the line.

Finally, If Bush didn't warn us and it got out that there was a threat you'd complain, so your accusations are once again without merit.

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 6, 2004 09:09 PM

When contemplating the upcoming election, I refuse to impress anyone with a strong conviction, rather, assess accurately Bush's failures juxtaopposing Kerry's. First off, one must contemplate the economy, where statistics, although bent by most, never lie. The truth is the surplus Clinton created during his presidency, 511 trillion dollars, I believe, was squandered, perhaps beyond repair. Furthermore, Bush is pro-outsourcing of jobs...which means that people can work outside the US for no taxes which further burdens the already grieved middle class on their's. Kerri however, who seems to provide solutions to what in my mind is a growing threat of economic chaos, is against the outsourcing of jobs...Hooray. Plus our Bostonian candidate is working to relieve the taxed and distribute the burden evenly among the taxed and the tax exempt! Hooray again, I say! Yet it is easily to formulate these kind of issues in hindsight, seeing where Bush failed and capitalizing on that. Unfortunately for Bush, he's made enough mistakes to render an entire platform according to his blunders. I continue: Kerri calls for co-operation with the UN, which shows his desire to resume respect for the United States...hip hip hoorah! Yet, this all seems to be too good to be true, whats the catch? Here is is folks: If there is one thing I admire in George Bush is his willingness to operate fast and without hesitation when it is rightfully appropriate, such as the case of Afghanistan (NOT Iraq, however, which unlike the attack of the Taliban against the US, which was justified due to the close relation between the government of Afghanistan and the terrorist cells working there, there was no reason for the US to attack Iraq, since we were not provoked, and that, albeit a tyrannical force to reckon with, Iraq was one of many dictatorships that could be attacked. Isn't it a coinkidink that it happens to have one of the world's most abundant sources of oil? And that our commander in chief owned, although unsuccessfully, a large oil company?) This is truly admirable of Bush (speaking of his attack on Afghanistan) and left with the choice of attacking or not attacking Afghanistan, Gore would have hesitated, fearing the consequence that the World would hold on him. For this I do nothing but commend him. Kerry seems like he'll respond well to threats when necessary, due to his military involvement in the rivers of Viet Nam, yet Bush has the experience I suppose.
However, the choice is up to you, I'm just expressing my most modest of opinions.

Posted by: Tim at August 7, 2004 01:35 AM

President Bush repealed the marriage tax penalty, increased the child tax credit to 1000 per child and understands that the only way to revive the economy is to give people back more of their own money.

John Kerry voted against the ban on partial birth abortions,against the Laci Peterson law, and against the banning of burning our flag!He is wrong on the economy, bad for small business and wrong on terror!My vote goes to the President!

Posted by: Mark at August 7, 2004 07:20 AM

Have you ever read the bottle of Heinz Ketchup.Let me help you, MADE IN MEXICO!I am sick of hearing that Bush let jobs go overseas!Kerry and his wife have several operations outside the U.S.

Posted by: Mark at August 7, 2004 07:25 AM

Jason,

I think you should watch this so that you can avoid being called umm... something nasty.

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv

Posted by: Carlos at August 8, 2004 06:38 PM

Mark,

I am a Bush supporter. I believe that he best represents my beliefs as the president and incumbent. I will vote for Bush again this time. I do however, have to ask you to clarify the whole made in Mexico thing with the Heinz Ketchup. When I saw your post I walked...nay, RAN to my fridge to whip out the old bottle of Ketchup. I was so hoping to find made in Mexico printed on the label that I was salivating. When to my surprise, it read; "MFD IN U.S.A. BY H.J. HEINZ CO., L.P. PITTSBURGH, PA 15230". Please do not try to strengthen your position by spreading rumors it just makes us all look bad.

Posted by: Carlos at August 8, 2004 07:10 PM

Mark,

You say the only way to revive the economy is to give people back more of their money? Other than what you have said (which is very little), what has he done? Give tax cuts to the rich...that only benifits the top 5% of the economy. Encourage companies to move their operations overseas...well, that only benefits the rich again. So what has Mr. Bush done other than increase our defecit so much that our kids are going to be paying for it?

Posted by: Jirai at August 8, 2004 09:43 PM

Here is one for everyone to read. Maybe it will put it into perspective!!

Consider the following information
by Bob Reynolds

There were 39 combat related killings
in Iraq during the month of January.....
In the fair city of Detroit there were
35 murders in the month of January.

That's just one American city,
about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.

When some claim President Bush shouldn't
have started this war, state the following ...

FDR...
led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost,
an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman...
finished that war and started one in Korea,
North Korea never attacked us.
>From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost,
an average of 18,334 per year.

Kennedy...
invaded the Bay of Pigs.
Cuba never attacked us.
And in 1962 Kennedy started the
Vietnam conflict.
Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson...
turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
>From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost,
an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton...
went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent,
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter
three times by Sudan and did nothing.
Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us
President Bush has ...
liberated two countries,
crushed the Taliban,
crippled al-Qaida,
put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and
North Korea without firing a shot,
and captured a terrorist who slaughtered
300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining
about how long the war is taking, but...
It took less time to take Iraq
than it took Janet Reno to take the
Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of
chemical weapons in Iraq for less
time than it took Hillary Clinton to
find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division
and the Marines to destroy the Medina
Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy
to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank
at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took
to count the votes in Florida!

Posted by: Teresa G at August 9, 2004 11:01 AM

From www.PIMNEWS.com:

So much for being Patriots.

ADMINISTRATION COMPROMISED INTELLIGENCE FOR POLITICAL GAIN

It was troubling enough that the Bush Administration issued a fake terror alert for Washington, DC and New York City based on old outdated four year old information. Arguably worst is that members of the Bush administration compromised an ongoing terror probe that reached deep into Al-Quada and was leading to the locations of the terror group’s top leaders and sources in the U.S.

Government officials leaked the name of Muhammed Naeem Noor Khan as an excuse for the heightened terror alert that has virtually stopped morning and afternoon commutes and activities in Washington, DC and New York City. Khan is a computer expert who helped Osama Bin Laden and his top level associates communicate with their terror network.

Immediately following the announcement of Khan as a suspect in the alert, there was an immediate and significant drop in communication between Al-Quada members. Even more remarkably, the FBI was in the midst of an attempt to round up persons who email addresses and phone numbers were stored in Khan’s computer.

The Pakistani Foreign Minister as well as the British Home Secretary, David Blunkett, both severely criticized the Bush Administration for the information leak. According to sources in both countries, intelligence operatives and law enforcement personnel were both in the midst of tracking down Khan’s contacts. George Allen, a Republican Senator from Virginia, uncharacteristically criticized the Administration, “in my view, they should have kept their mouths shut.”

Posted by: Paul Pimentel at August 9, 2004 04:19 PM

Becky- Let's take your ridiculous post one point at a time.
Economy - everyone of the dozens of indicators that signal the condition of the economy point to a strong US economy. The Jobs Report that has made so much news lately is a slanted view or a great jobs situation. The overall unemployment rate is 5.5%. That is better than the average over the last 20 years and on par with the "glorious" '90's. But why do they say the economy is so bad you ask? Take a nonbiased educated guess.
Environment - The world is BY FAR cleaner than it has been in 40 years. The EVIL US is not the ruiner of the environment you would have us believe. Rather we lead the way in innovation to produce cleaner companies, machines, cars, products.... the list goes on and on.
Funding Education - I have to admit this one made me laugh. President Bush increased education funding dramatically. He has spent more money on education than any person in the history of the world. He put Teddy Kennedy in charge of the program and allowed him to write the education bill. What the hell else do you want from the man???
Civil Rights - Playing the race/sex card is a old and worn as it gets. The days of trying to paint Republicans as evil haters of minorities and women is nothing short of pathetic. Instead, I challenge you to discuss the advances the Democrats have provided for minorties. Be prepared for my follow on question - Oh yeah, then why are minorties so bad off today if they've been voting for you guys. You've controlled the House and Senate for decades. And a hate filled diatribe won't suffice either.
Hated Nation - Substitute "envied" and you would be more correct. The US in simultaniously the most free, prosperous, strongest and envied nation in the world. It is little wonder that the liberators of the enslaved are hated for doing so considering your attitude.
Millions of terrorists - Please! Surely you're not equating Muslims and Terrorists? If you're not I would like to see those ridiculous numbers backed up.
Preemptively - Can you say Kosovo, Bosnia, Vietnam, Cuba... Get a military education and we'll talk.
False intelligence - Incorrect intelligence provided by the Clinton administration, the Russians, The Brits, The French, The Germans and the beloved UN would be more accurate. Incorrect only on the issue of "stockpiles" of WMDs. WMDs have been found and every other reason given to go to war to liberate 30 million people is still valid.
Religous vote - Christ performed miracles to prove to unbelievers he was God not to convince them to vote for him for president or did you miss that. He tought about love, compassion, mercy, responsibility and countless other things. Loving someone into poverty certainly wasn't one of those things.
Wake up and be something your Senator is not- Informed, Honest, Intellegent, Moral, a leader and worthy to hold the office. XOXO

Posted by: Teresa G at August 9, 2004 07:09 PM

Great job Teresa!

Posted by: Carlos at August 9, 2004 09:08 PM

Why not John Kerry? One word LIBERAL. Yes it is a bad word and always will be.

Posted by: Bill at August 9, 2004 11:18 PM

TO: Teresa and Carlos,

Teresa we aren't buying any of that. The jobs that are being created are at much less pay and much harder work. We have not turned the corner as GW JR states; but, we have made a complete "U" turn back to 2001.

Just Today Aug 9th,

DAYTON, Ohio _ Washington Mutual Inc. will shut down lending and loan processing o