« IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID | Main | Kerry and The Bronze Star Controversy »

August 11, 2004

Bush Administration Puts Our National Security at Risk

With terrorist threats at our mist, security is something that we do not have the luxury of losing especially if it's through recklessness.

When someone within the Bush Administration leaked to the media the existence of Pakistan informant Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, it put our security in jeopardy and decreased the chances of capturing actual terrorists. Last weekend, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice admitted that administration officials did leak Khan's name.

The administration later on mentioned that the information was based on data two to four years old. Some suggest that the timing on releasing such information was a politically motivated tactic to knock the opposition out of the headlines. Homeland security adviser Frances Townsend said: "It had nothing to do with the Democratic National Convention."

Khan was a computer expert for Al Qaeda turned informant who was not helping Al Qaeda officials but rather helping to catch them. The act of even giving his name away led to the permanent shut down of key sources of information about Al Qaeda's plans and activities. The Pakistani Government had no other choice but to take Khan out of the mission and hide him.

Also, not only did Khan's exposure bring turmoil within our country but allies around the world were outraged by Bush's lack of judgment. Now, this accidental leakage has damaged the sharing of information between us and our allies.

Was Bush and his administration making a hasty decision because of an insatiable desire for reelection?

Posted by Tuck at August 11, 2004 09:01 PM

Comments

You know what is suprising, alarming, and completely wrong of the Bush Administration. The sudden alarming amount of Terrorist alerts that all of a sudden(near the Republican National Convention) seemed to surface based on information obtained 4 years ago, then another report claimed the information was updated as early as January (7 months ago). Why not during the Democratic National Convention (the same information was in Bush's hands), and Kerry had to request security. I traveled to Vegas by plane in 2002 and didn't know of any threats. I met an shook hands with Gladys Knight. I had no idea I was a sitting Duck. I am sorry, I feel the Bush Administration is calling wolf once again. I saw on local Texas TV, that although the local authorities of Las Vegas was warned by the FBI, the Mayor claimed he was never informed of the threats. Why would you tell a city like the Vegas casino owners that bases its income on a very high tourism factor about a threat and not tell the political sector. This saddens me very deeply. I've also now learned of potential threats to Dallas, Houston, and Austin and the Texas people are all taking it in stride. They are NOT refusing to go to work, they are NOT afraid and most know for a fact, even if they don't admit it, that this is simply one of Bush's political games. It won't work GW JR., even you are familiar with our State Logan "Don't Mess With Texas". This man will do anything to convince the American people that he is a war President since history shows that a true war President has never been ousted. I am both appalled and what this man will do to continue as President. Furthermore he is losing his precious war in Iraq! If he would focus on finding Osama Bin Ladin I may have an ounce of belief in his story instead all I get is promises that Osama Bin Laden will be found. Please don't keep throwing the "War on Terrorism" in my face. It's sickining. It's more like a war to control the White House.

Najaf Fighting Worst Since Saddam's Fall

Al-Sadr on Friday blamed all the violence in Iraq on the United States, which he called "our enemy and the enemy of the people," in a sermon read on his behalf at the Kufa Mosque near Najaf.

The 73-year-old ayatollah, who holds enormous influence among Iraq's Shiite majority, has played a largely moderating role, urging Shiites not to resort to anti-U.S. violence, and during al-Sadr's first uprising he played a role in trying to calm the crisis.

Please Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: Texans4Kerry at August 12, 2004 01:36 AM

Please, how can anyone assume they have all the facts. Considering the excellent job President Bush has done so far, I trust him to make the best decision. I am livid with the "know it alls" that assume they can make judgements based on their limited and press tainted data when the President is informed daily of specifics. This is not information we do or SHOULD have, it is the NATIONS SECURITY that is at risk, you and I.

Posted by: Jeanne Broadway at August 12, 2004 01:40 AM

I am so Angry! I am writing my second letter to the White House for accountability. The first was the Ecomonic slup and the loss of jobs in America. You simply don't withhold that type of information to the American public until Election time! I could have been killed!!!

Posted by: Texans4Kerry at August 12, 2004 01:51 AM

My apologies posters, I just checked my ticket stubs and it was April, 2003 when I traveled to Vegas., but still no excuse, I am constructing a site at http//home.earthlink.net/~texans4kerryedwards Please support my site. This is horrible!! My email is texans4kerryedwards@earthlink.net It was a 2.5 hour flight and I could have been killed! Please, Please, get this man out of office!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: Texans4Kerry at August 12, 2004 02:03 AM

I am so upset, I can't even get the website correct. I will post it after my letter to the White House.

Posted by: Texans4Kerry at August 12, 2004 02:17 AM

No, it wasn't a hasty decision, it was a forced one -- by the media who poo-poo'ed the terror alert and said it was 'made up' based on 4 year old info. Turns out they were wrong -- by a longshot -- but it required divulging the name for the NYTimes, et al, to believe it. THAT is the real scandal here.

Posted by: Bruce Carroll at August 12, 2004 05:52 AM

Read For Yourself! GW JR. a self proclaimed War President will stop at nothing to win the election!

Bush Mistake Helps Al-Qaeda Agents Escape!

http://progressivetrail.org/articles/040809Cole.shtml

The Bush administration revealed Khan's name to US journalists on Sunday August 1 on background, and it appeared in the US press on Monday. The Bush administration thus effectively outed Khan as a double agent (he sent emails to his London contacts as late as Monday).

The British MI5 was forced to have the London cell of 13 arrested immediately on Tuesday, fearing that they would flee now that they knew Khan had been arrested two weeks earlier. The British do not, however, appear to have finished gathering enough evidence to prosecute the 13 in the courts successfully.

It now turns out, according to Neville, that "Reports last week also claimed that five al Qaida militants were on the run in the UK after escaping capture in last Tuesday’s raids." If this is true, it is likely that the 5 went underground on hearing that Khan was in custody. That is, the loose lips of the Bush administration enabled them to flee arrest.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 12, 2004 11:27 AM

For the Bush critics second guessing his every move. What is your security clearance? I am a Bush supporter, but I almost hope Kerry gets elected just so all you critics will see a deer in headlights. Only Bush and his cabinet know the urgency of a threat. We also cannot guess the intentions of the Bush Administration. That is a dangerous game.

Let's face it no matter what Bush or his administration does you libs are going to criticize because your ultimate goal is not national security but getting your man back in the White House to protect Roe v Wade, push the homosexual agenda, weaken our defense and make nice with the U.N.

Now the facts: No new terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11. Saddam is gone, Libya has sent her nuclear capabilities to Tennessee, The U.N. has been exposed as biased, and Pakistan is getting Osama's thugs and the economy is improving. Now, to those who want to continue to second guess Bush's every move, what have you contributed to our national security?

I've got news for Texans4Kerry, if your upset because you don't think you had enough information to determine whether you should fly or not, you should never leave the house.

I'll give you an update in case you have not heard Bush or Ridge lately. We are at war. There are people that want to kill us because we are Americans (not because Bush is in office). Bush just had the intestinal fortitude to stand up to our enemies. Everyone was in agreement that Iraq was a threat. The whole world agreed even your liberal buddies. So, do we sit back and let the possibility of another 9/11 happen or do we take it to the enemy? Think about the 9/11 survivors before you answer.

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 12, 2004 11:50 AM

I am glad someone has some sense here!

Justice Disputes Key Terror Case Evidence
August 12, 2004 06:59 AM EDT

The Bush administration's already troubled case against an accused terror cell in Detroit is being dealt another blow with revelations that a witness came forward after the trial to undercut a key piece of video evidence presented to jurors.

Lawyers and Justice Department officials said Wednesday night that a man shown in a videotape of landmarks in New York, Las Vegas and California has told investigators the tape was an amateur film and not surveillance as prosecutors portrayed at the trial of four suspected terrorists.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at August 12, 2004 12:13 PM

Most of the debate taking place here is absolutely ridiculous. No matter what President Bush does, his detractors scream. Not enough alerts, to many alerts, cleverly timed alerts. What is it?

Kerry attacks Bush for sitting for 7 minutes after being told of the attack, while he sat for 40 minutes and then didn't even show up at his committee meeting on the attacks. Sure, he's going to keep America safe because he cared. He cared enough not to show up or vote for policies concerning the war in Iraq.

His arguements are disengenuous because he says he would act a certain way but his record in the Senate tells exactly the opposite when he showed up to act at all.

His campaign is so out of touch with reality. His wife referred to natural born citizens in New Mexico as immigrants. He cries about the economy when most economists are saying that not only are we recovering but the recovery is strong. Many analysts go so far as to say the hesitation in the stock market are a fear of a Kerry Presidency.

I understand the frustration of the woman who felt that she was a sitting duck because she wasn't warned. What if you had been warned and, as Ridge has said, it wasn't a real threat. You wouldn't have gone and wouldn't have gotten to shake Gladys Knight's hand. Apparently Ridge was right, you made it there safe and sound, no threat.

The war in Iraq is uncomfortable but we are expecting them to do something in a matter of months that it took the United States of America years to accomplish-the formation of a free society based upon the values of a representative government.

Why doesn't the militia's in Iraq want this? It will strip them of their authority and dominion over free thinking individuals in that country. It assults their sensibilities because they loose control of their society and turn it over to the representation of it's people.

Kerry says Bush has no plan. He does, he just isn't telling us or them because that tells the insurgents what his plans are.

Kerry says he'll pull out in 6 months. All they have to do is listen to that, sit quietly for six months and then when we leave, the attacks begin and then we go through the waiting for UN sanctions the likes of which are killing a thousand people a day in the Sudan because of a lack of action on the part of the UN.

We all need to stop looking at simple individual events and start looking at the Big Picture and the Big Picture, at least to me, says that President Bush is on the right course for not only a better and safer America, but a better and safer world.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 12, 2004 03:08 PM

All this information has been so distorted in the media and you are buying it hook line and sinker. The laptop that was found and the ream of diskettes contained information on gathering intelligence on specific sites in the US. Some of that information goes back 2 years. IT WASN"T FOUND 2 YEARS AGO! It was found a couple of weeks ago. Much of the info was as recent as January of this year. They released the information as soon as possible based on having to analyze the info, etc. If anything, they may have held it until your little party in Boston was done for fear of the exact kinf of attacks we are seeing now. As usual Bush can not do anything right in your minds. They will spin no matter what happens to try and turn it into a negative.
Kerry is nothing but a political opportunist with no convictions who is willing to change his position at the whim of whatever is popular at the moment.
Now he is syaing 'Oh that Christmas in Cambodia that I said was 'seared - seared - in my memory' was actually not Christmas...must have been some other date that I can't tell you. How ridiculous! He is a liar, a fraud, an opportunist adn will be one of the greatest trgedies to happen to the presidency if he somehow is allowed in.

Posted by: Ed at August 12, 2004 05:51 PM

THE TIDE IS TURNING! OHIO AND FLORIDA NOW GOING DEMOCRATIC! NEVADA AND ARIZONA FOLLOWING IN A DEAD HEAT! THE WAY OHIO GOES SO DOES THE NATION!

Polls show Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, with a 6% lead in Ohio, a state that usually votes with the winner. Bush has been here 20 times since taking office, and Kerry has visited 12 times just this year.

Democratic Sen. John Kerry has taken a slight lead over President Bush in Florida, the essential swing state in the 2000 electioN. Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, had the backing of 47 percent in the poll by Quinnipiac University of Hamden, Conn. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had the support of 41%. The poll of 1,094 registered voters, which was conducted Aug. 5-10, reported a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

KEEP RUNNING THE NEGATIVE ADDS RNC!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 12, 2004 07:35 PM

Listen to yourself, Chris.
Do you honestly think we should follow the administration blindly? Its time we thought for ourselves, as rational human beings. We have an obligation to.

If President Bush did something liberals supported, most would support him.There are fanatics, left and right, to partisan to see clearly. They are not the majority.

So lets just get this straight: Liberals love America, too! Liberals want security, too. Supporting gay/human rights is not a bad thing. Neither is respecting the UN. Those aren't the only issues that liberals push, though.

More facts: Saddam being gone has made the Middle East MORE unstable than it was before. Al-Sadr is growing in popularity daily, and people who cheered the troops when they arrived in Baghdad are now willing to fight to the death against those same forces. Threats, as the Bush Administration would have us believe, of terrorist attack have not abated. Meanwhile, we find Iran, not Iraq has the potential to make WMD's, and more policemen will be gaurding the Republican National Convention than soldiers are searching for Osama. Pakistan is getting his thugs, and he's recruiting more as I sit and write.

The people who want to kill us because we are American- they want to kill us largely because we invaded their country and wont leave. Who captained that invasion? GW jr. Clinton made friends- Bush made enemies.

Everyone was in agreement that Iraq was a threat on false information. Information that the CIA confirmed was false- the white house ignored this, and fed it to the public. We were misled into war.

Think about what that means to the families of those who perished 9/11/01.

Posted by: Anna at August 12, 2004 07:38 PM

Anna,

I don't think we should follow the administration blindly? Thinking for yourself is a good thing, however criticizing the president without knowledge is irresponsible.

President Bush has compromised with the libs on several issues including healthcare, his compromise on judicial nominees and the war on terror (remember he went back to the U.N. who supported the resolutions). A threat with no teeth is meaningless.

Liberals should love America. People like my grandfather fought for you to protest for so called homosexual rights and your other agendas. By the way we have the right to protect the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. We can agree to disagree on that one.

Let's not forget we are the leading contributor to the U.N. and what thanks do we get? We were kicked off of the Human Rights Committee and replaced by thugs (the worst violators). That should make Libs mad but it doesn't.

Your comment: "Saddam being gone has made the Middle East MORE unstable than it was before. " is not a fact. IT IS AN OPINION. The news I get tells me that the most Iraqis support us. It is a small percentage that does not. Most are foreigners. By the way, better to fight on their soil than on ours.

Fact: Iraq is a sovereign nation.

We are there to assist. If liberals are so supportive of human rights, why do you not support the liberation of the Iraqis? Do you know that there are woman Olympic teams from Iraq this year? This is a far cry from being systematically raped and tortured for disagreeing with Saddam.

The Bush Administration identified Iran as a threat in his "axis of evil" speech. Iraq defied the U.N and shot at our pilots and we still didn't take him out. He was given plenty of opportunity to humble himself.

Yes, Pakistan is rounding up Osama's thugs. If we go by your line of thinking, whoever can recruit has the moral edge. This is absurd. There is good and evil in the world. There will be until the end of time. We cannot negotiate with people who are willing to fly our passenger planes into our skyscrapers. Let's not be naive.
We did not invade the Middle East without provocation. We are at war.

The White House, Clinton, Albright, Kerry, Edwards, all who by the way had security clearance, said Saddam was a threat and should be dealt with. Bush dealt with him.

I, being a former New Yorker, who had family in the city on that day, am grateful that Bush has taken a stand.

I never want to see an attack on our soil again. It is probable that we will face it but the odds are less and less each day.

Posted by: Chris Tatem at August 12, 2004 09:52 PM

Well said Chris!

There are extremist on both sides of the isle who make it bad for the rest of us. Being liberal isn't a bad thing. Though basically a conservative I can listen to and understand liberal points of view without deciding they are evil. I can agree to disagree. What I don't care for is the stance that freedom of speech is only for those who oppose President Bush but freedom of speech is denied to those who oppose John Kerry.

I have not read one single comment from anyone in the administration who referred to John Kerry as being Unamerican, no spokesman for the Bush Presidency who accuses John Kerry of Unamerican activities, but they do it to Bush all the time. Mrs. Heinz Kerry, in by own state of Pennsylvania not only referred to my differences and debate of her husband as unpennsylvanian and unamerican and that seems to be okay with everybody. The reporter who questioned her on the staement becomes the evil one. I just don't get it.

There's far to much debate based on implication and subjective reasoning than pure and simple facts. Far to many are interested in reinventing the historical record for their own personal objectives, than in entering in a debate to actually hear the truth.

Debate is supposed to generate a learning experience. Debate is to help both sides come to a better understanding of the issue from more than one perspective. It appears to me, and this is just an opinion, that this year, democrats aren't interested in debate. They have chosen, instead, to shout down their opponents under the misguided believe that in the end, the one who shouts the loudest will win.

This years election is unlike any other in the history of the United States. The polls are meaningless because previous results of polls and elections are meaningless. 9/11 changed the face of this country and never before in the history of the United States has the voice of the special interests carried so much weight.

The media bias against the war in Iraq is stronger than the bias against Vietnam and we've come a long way from movies promoting the idea that the Americans are the good guys and the bad guy isn't Kerry or Bush, but the Islamic militants who want to see us dead. These tyrants can not be reasoned with. They can't be invited to sit down a be expected to tell the truth, 17 violations against the UN Resolution should have explained that to everyone.

One final point, get over the 2000 election. President Bush didn't take it to the Supreme courts, the DNC did. President Bush didn't file a petition demanding that the votes of American's serving their country in the military overseas be tossed out. Independant studies by three of the most largest and most liberal newspapers in America gave the Florida election to Bush. But somehow none of that seems to matter, even to John Kerry who has deceitfully used this issue to strike a chord to win votes.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 13, 2004 12:06 AM

Let's not forget (all those dems out there who claim that states like Florida and Ohio are turning democratic) that these news polls are not as accurate as people may like to think. For instance, I come from the state of Michigan where black people supported Al Gore in 2000 with something like 84% of the black vote. These polls that are taken by the news like to spread things out so that a diverse group of people are represented. Blacks are a minority the state of Michigan as they are in the nation, so to take a poll of 1000 people and have 400 black people included in that poll is not an accurate representation of the population (you look up the facts and do the math if you want). Well surprise, surprise, since the dems make out Bush to be a racist every chance they get, ofcourse every single black person from Michigan who is polled by the news will vote for Kerry. And you know what? Bush and Kerry are in a dead heat in the state of Michigan! So you know that that means? Bush is actually winning the State of Michigan by a lot!

And besides, it's not over till it's over. We still have lots to look forward to: WMD found and Osama Bin Laden captured in the month of October. I hope you dems are looking forward to it as much as I am (though I know Kerry isn't). So dems, remember the Alamo, remember what you tried to pull in 2000 with the DUI information a week before the election. You will have lots to remember after 2004.

Posted by: David at August 13, 2004 09:40 AM

Anna,
Just where do you get your inforaiton? Middle East a more dangerous place. I highly doubt it, the King of Jordan, the Saudi Royal Family and a host of other middle eastern leaders have all said how they are glad Sadam is gone and that they rest easier now that the threat is removed.

If you watch the news you don't get the whole story on Iraq. You get what they want you to see, the media is by far Liberal that is without doubt. I have personally talked with Marines who were in Iraq and they are amazed at the lack of positive information getting back to the US. They US has rebuilt over 800 schools in Bagdad alone and they are open and teaching. They opened so many schools that the US allowed Bathest party members who were teacher to come back and teach. The normal day to day infrastructure is better that pre Gulf war standards. More people have electricity than ever. Every day they are swamped with Iraqi citizens wishing them well and thanking them for liberating Iraq and wish that the US would be MORE forcefull in dealing with the insurgents so that they can feel safe.

Oh and by the way the US did not invade IRAQ, we did not start a war we are finishing what Iraq started in 1990. That war was never declared over because Sadam Hussen did not adhere to the UN resolutions thereby voiding the ceacefire that was called. The US did not need the UN permision to finish what Sadam started.

As for National Security, you are not privy to what the President sees. If you knew only 1/4 of what has been done to keep the US safe you would be afraid to leave your house. The informaion on attacks that have been stopped can not be released for fear of letting the other side know our tactics. If the US outed Khan then there was a reason for it. Maybe he was no longer needed or they felt he was comprimised. Who knows? I'm sure you don't.

Texans4Kerry,
Whaaa Whaaa Whaaa. Cry me a river. The FBI took those tapes to Las Vegas set them up and called a meeting for all Casino owners, local law enforcement and the Mayors office, so they could show them what was on the tapes. Only one officer bothered to show up and the Deputy Mayor himself said that the Mayor refused to look at the tapes citing "If I know about it and something happens I will be blamed for not doing something to stop it, and I can't afford to harm our tourism, So better for me not to know." It's easy to say after the fact "I was never informed", but that was not the case.

Posted by: Wayne at August 13, 2004 10:01 AM

To all the Anti-Bush, Anti-War, He-lied-to-us Democrats out there, I would ask the question:

During an Associated Press interview "Sen. John Kerry said Monday he would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq knowing what he does now". It sure looks to me like even John Kerry would have attacked Iraq and taken Saddam Hussein out so if President Bush lied to us, is John Kerry also lying or would he be given a pass?

The question is a direct quote from USA Today at http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-08-09-kerry-vote_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

Posted by: john at August 13, 2004 10:36 AM

David, I bet you also listen to Rush Limbaugh! HA! By the way, I thought your on personal poll was very amusing; however, Kerry is winning strong in Michigan and Kerry will win this election for the simple reason that GW JR. is incompetent!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at August 13, 2004 11:33 AM

One whiner on this board wrote the following and apparently prefers to believe Al-Sadr - a man wanted for murder.

These libs are always on the wrong side of common sense. Oh - I forgot - they have none.

Al-Sadr on Friday blamed all the violence in Iraq on the United States, which he called "our enemy and the enemy of the people," in a sermon read on his behalf at the Kufa Mosque near Najaf.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 13, 2004 09:13 PM

This is something for all of us to think about. Reguardless of your religous beliefs. On July 4 2004 I was asked to say a few words before our church congregation. below is what I said. Just think about its implecations to our lives and our country.

"We are here today to worship and praise God. Because of the sacrifice in the last 228 years by hundreds of thousands of men and women who serve and have served in our armed forces, we have that freedom. Without their sacrifice we would not have the freedom to worship God here today.

I take pride in wearing this uniform because of what it represents. It represents freedom. I am honored to serve my country in whatever capacity God sees fit. He has seen fit to put me in this uniform.

We thank those who serve and have served with Honor, Courage and Commitment for the Freedoms we have today. There are other men and women in our congregation who have served and protected our country because, they too, believe in Freedom.

I wear this uniform because I was taught of things like Duty to my country. Today, too many believe that freedoms they have are rights given to them by man, They are wrong!

Freedom comes from God and only God. He has used men in uniform throughout history to secure those freedoms. Without those willing to give up their time, selves and their lives, we would be a nation not fit to exist on Gods earth.

I was taught of honor. Honor is that thing inside that makes you willing to serve for a country who stands for freedom around the world, a people who you may not even know, but are willing to sacrifice for. For a people who may protest and rally against military action, a people who burn our flag in the streets of America.

The men and woman who wear the uniform of our nation, wear it for those people, for their freedom!

I wear it too for the people who take their children to church on Sunday, who tell them of the sacrifice Jesus Christ made an the cross. For those people who are willing to get up from the pews,
to use their vote and voice when they see our religious freedoms being eroded everyday in our nation. For a people who understand what the cost of freedom is!

Throughout the many conflicts our nation has faced, you have heard people say things like “ I support our troops, but not the war”

The truth is they go hand in hand. You cannot do one with out the other. A serviceman is under obligation to fulfill his mission. He has taken an oath to uphold the orders given to him starting with his “Commander in Chief” and so on down the Chain of Command, no matter if he agrees with it or not, that is called Duty.

He has committed to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to defend her against ALL enemies foreign and domestic so help him God!

With the raising of his right hand and a stroke of the pen, he states he is willing to give his life for such a cause. All those here who wear or have worn the uniform have taken such an oath. Maybe All of us should take such an oath. Maybe then we would understand as a nation the sacrifices for our freedoms many have made and continue to make around the world today.

When people find out that I am in the military, I hear things like “I hope you will not be called up” or “I hope you do not have to go over there”. To me, it would be an honor to go. I have trained for 19 years to use the skills that God has provided to me to bring freedom to others around the world. What or when or were ever it is, I will answer the call. It is my duty and my privilege to serve. I know I am watched over and protected and that Jesus is my Lord and Savior.
His timing is perfect.

As we worship here today, let us remember our Soldiers, Airman, Sailors, Marines and Coast Guardsman serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other parts of the world. They, like our forefathers, like some of you have who are here today, are laying their lives on the line to protect our freedoms and the freedoms of others throughout the world.

They cannot celebrate Independence Day like we can today. They will have no family bar-b-ques to attend, they cannot hold their babies, or play with their children, or spend precious family time with their wives and loved ones. As we exercise our freedoms today; as we, a free people, worship God today, we pray for our troops who are away from home this Independence day".

What a different place it would be if we all could stop being victoms and start being AMERICANS!

Posted by: NAVY SEABEE at August 14, 2004 12:48 AM

John,
I suggest you check the gallop polls,(galloppoll.com) once there click on "GAP WIDENS BETWEEN RED AND BLUE STATES" and then go over to the rassmusen poll (rassmusen.com). Click on all of the catagories, go ahead check out the electoral college state by state. click on the "toss-up" states,(be prepared for that sick, sinking feeling) you'll notice that THE PRESIDENT is gaining every day. (states are considered toss-up if the canidates are closer than 5 points). Click on all of them and see what I mean, your guy "RAMBO" keeps sliding everyday and will soon be "in the water" in need of rescue himself. Remember, we REPUBLICANS still have the convention to look forward to... dare I say the word...BOUNCE!

Posted by: BRYAN at August 14, 2004 11:36 AM

Hey, check this out if you really want to know who's winning.

http://www.electionguide04.com/straw_poll.adp

This poll is open to only AOL customers... there is no bias here... as AOL users are neither mostly republicans or dems... The great thing about this poll is that it's not just a Liberal media sorry ass excuse for a poll that ask 1000 people of their chosen, but actually has some volume... so far at 55,000 respondents. I'd say this is a better picture than anything your going to get on broadcast news etc...

Posted by: Bob in NH at August 14, 2004 02:09 PM

It is amazing what a few months can do. Not long ago we were a country united (or so we pretended?). I can only laugh (or sigh) at how fast a division among our citizens can happen when they realize a election is around the corner and personal agenda's again become the main focus. Most of the comments I read in this think tank (or perhaps septic tank) are only media thoughts with twists. Agree or disagree there are countries, cells and individuals that hate the american way (mostly because they have been misinformed or jealousy because they are not a part of it). After 911 we realized our free ride was over. The division among ourselves is just what the terrorist's we are fighting enjoy seeing and they feed on our division and it is apparently working. Big question were we led into Iraq by out and out lies or misinformation given to people in high places about weapons of mass destruction? And If so is that the only reason we should take the war on terrorism there? In my experience usually when lies are told more lies must be told to cover up those lies. If our elected official's were so dishonest to lie about that I believe they would have been dishonest enough to also have planted weapons and find them to show us and get the political screamers of their backs. And they have not done that (Thank You that say's alot. Actions speak louder than words). With global positioning devices it would be easy to bury weapons and in the desert sun you would not be able to tell a hole was dug by mid morning. I remember seeing a airplane they dug up, it would be easy to hide containers of chemical's and they may never be found unless someone digs a basement there someday. If Saddam had weapons such as these, knowing we had CIA and others planted there, surely these locations would be kept highly secret. ( what were we expecting a weapons of mass destruction 9 miles ahead sign). The military is doing a job that needed to be done (KEEP SUPPORTING THEM). I believe the division in our country has likely been the resolve for many terrorists to keep fighting harder. I also believe that division has cost the lives of soldiers because it is offering the enemy HOPE. The majotity of the Iraqi people are not fighting us it is only extremists. The infection has not completely healed but it will and yes we will be safer and the mideast will be better because of it. The decision to go to Iraq was supported in vast majority by the American people. This was not only one group or political party it was by supported by most of us. It was the right decision stand firm! If John Kerry Has these great ideas on how to run the war better don't wait till after the election disclose these idea's to the people in charge now! It could save lives between here and the election. If any citizen had these ideas's that he say's he is holding back, it would be wrong to the soldiers, families and friends not to share these ideas and possibly help save these lives or is this just politics? You decide.

Posted by: Gary at August 14, 2004 02:26 PM

Re: Gary

Big question were we led into Iraq by out and out lies or misinformation given to people in high places about weapons of mass destruction?

NO, WE WERE LED INTO IRAQ BY MISINFORMATION GIVEN BY GW JR. TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

If our elected official's were so dishonest to lie about that I believe they would have been dishonest enough to also have planted weapons and find them to show us and get the political screamers of their backs!

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT MAY HAPPEN, PLEASE DON'T ENCOURAGE THEM! LOOK AT THE BOGUS TERROR ALERTS RIGHT BEFORE THE RNC! (HOW CONVIENENT)

what were we expecting a weapons of mass destruction 9 miles ahead sign

NO, WERE WERE SHOWN ON NATIONAL TV TRAILERS THAT THE GW JR. ADMINISTRATION AND BRITISH INTELLIGENCE WERE CERTAIN CONTAINED WMD'S!

The decision to go to Iraq was supported in vast majority by the American people.

BASED ON LIES BY THE GW JR. ADMINISTRATION!

If John Kerry Has these great ideas on how to run the war better don't wait till after the election disclose these idea's to the people in charge now!

JOHN KERRY IS NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE US AT THIS TIME AND IT IS NOT HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO TEACH GW JR. HE HAS A WHOLE ADMIN TO DO THAT AND THEY ARE FAILING!

AND IRAQ, NEVER ATTACHED THE U.S. OSAMA BIN LADEN AND HIS RECRUITS DID. WHY HASN'T GW JR., THE BRITISH INTELLIGENCE, THE CIA, AND THE FBI FOUND OSAMA BIN LADEN! SAADAM HAD NO TIES TO OSAMA, HE NEEDED TO BE OUSTED, BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF FORGETTING ABOUT BIN LADEN, WHO IS SILL RECRUITING AMERICAN HATERS!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at August 15, 2004 01:14 PM

Subject: NO OUTCRY??
I am not condoning what happened to the Iraqi prisoners...however, I think
it is vitally important that in my head I have these matters in proper
perspective...

* Saddam had Iraqi men, women and children put to death in human meat
grinders on a daily basis...NO OUTCRY FROM THE IRAQI PEOPLE OR THE ARAB
COMMUNITY...

*Saddam had people thrown off of 3 - 4 story buildings, while their
relatives were forced to watch...NO OUTCRY FROM THE IRAQI PEOPLE OR THE
ARAB
COMMUNITY...

* Saddam had people's tongues cut out, limbs chopped of, and even
beheaded,
while their families were forced to watch...NO OUTCRY FROM THE IRAQI
PEOPLE
OR THE ARAB COMMUNITY...

* Saddam's sons, as well as other Administrators and military
personnel raped and sodomized Iraqi girls, some as young as 8 years old,
on
a daily basis...NO OUTCRY FROM THE IRAQI PEOPLE OR THE ARAB COMMUNITY...

* Saddam's regime indiscriminately put to death millions of Iraqi citizens
on a daily basis, during the term of his brutal dictatorship, as evidenced
by the mass graves recently uncovered in various parts of Iraq...NO OUTCRY
FROM THE IRAQI PEOPLE OR THE ARAB COMMUNITY...

* Terrorists recently exploded several car bombs in Baghdad, killing 17
innocent Iraqi children and several dozen innocent Iraqi citizens...NO
OUTCRY FROM THE IRAQI PEOPLE OR THE ARAB COMMUNITY...

* Terrorists have been killing American/Coalition soldiers on a daily
basis
since we sent our troops, many of whom gave their lives on Iraqi soil,
used
US taxpayer dollars to liberate the Iraqi people...NO OUTCRY FROM THE
IRAQI
PEOPLE OR THE ARAB COMMUNITY...

* Four Americans were killed in Fallujah, their bodies were burned,
mutilated, dragged through the streets and hung on a bridge...while Iraqi
people cheered and stoned the bodies...NO OUTCRY FROM THE IRAQI PEOPLE OR
THE ARAB COMMUNITY...

AND NOW, A FEW IRAQI PRISONERS HAVE BEEN HUMILIATED (poor babies)...A PAIR OF WOMEN'S Underwear PUT ON THE PRISONERS HEADS, A FEW NAKED
PHOTOGRAPHS...AND THE IRAQI PEOPLE AND THE ENTIRE ARAB COMMUNITY GO
Ballistic...GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
As said, I don't condone what happened to the prisoners..but until the
Iraqi's and the Arab Community gets their act together...,
you might want to forward this if you agree, if not just Delete, that's
what
the X at the top of this page is for..

I DON'T WANT THE PRESIDENT TO APOLOGIZE TO THE ARABS FOR A DAMN THING!!!

Posted by: Paul Hicks at August 15, 2004 02:46 PM

For those of you that don't pay attention to what is said in the past by the people now slandering the president on WMD and connections between Iraq and terrorist organizations, I thought I would give you a little something to chew on. Please feel free to verify these before dismissing them.
By the way these are all quotes from democrate leadership.
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of Mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Senator Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002,
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Posted by: James at August 15, 2004 05:15 PM

I think it is amusing to see that the more vitriolic the leftist gunslingers get, the more the softvote poll swings toward Bush. The more the leftys spew rhetoric rather than truth, the wider the gap gets between Bush and Kerry in the Gallup Poll. For those who dont know, the Gallup poll has been Americas most accurate poll for 20 years, RESEARCH IT, and its findings exactly reflect softvotes and AOLs.

Posted by: Flip at August 16, 2004 12:49 PM

Let me get this straight, according to some here, first you complain that no WMD's were found, then when some were found buried in the ground in a lead lined cement encasement you speculate that our own people went in and buried them to make the President look good. You people will stop at nothing.

The evidence that Hussein had these weapons is overwhelming. He continually refused to allow UN inspectors to do their job (17 violations) so he must have been hiding something. The UN didn't do their job then, just like they aren't doing their job now in the Sudan-I'm sure the threat of sanctions is doing a lot to stop the slaughter of the people there.

Hussein used some of these weapons against his own people. That should have been reason enough for us to send troops to protect those people but we waited for the UN.

As a people, we only know part of the story. The parts given to us through the news media who desperately want John Kerry Elected. To show their bias, the headline from the associated press yesterday said thousands in Irag protest America, the article then goes on to describe, hundreds, not thousands who protest the attack in Najaf.
In spite of the fact that they are the ones firing against us from this so-called holy shrine, that the fighting would stop if they would, once again, the media paints us as the bad guys.

Some of you liberals need to clarify a few points. Is George stupid or is he the greatest mastermind that ever lived? You attack him because he stupid and yet somehow this stupid man plotted the greatest deception ever pulled on the American people by persuading the intelligence community of the entire world that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

He is neither stupid, nor is he a devious liar.

America changed on 9/11. The cautionary fear we feel is a result of that attack, not the war on Iraq. Now we know it can happen and we fear that it might happen again. The Presidents, GW or Clinton wasn't responsible, the terrorists were. THEY ARE THE BAD GUYS. They attacked us and their target was the financial, military and governmental communities. Their plots were well planned and intended to cripple us, not just kill the thousands of people, but to destroy the capabilities of our financial institutions, our military institutions and the government.

That this action offended the world is without a doubt. That some were brave enough, and concerned enough to get involved with us is also without a doubt with 40 plus nations of the world joining us in the fight against terrorism after the UN REFUSED to respond.

The war we are fighting is not against any nation or country but against an ideology who seeks to extinguish democracy and will stoop to whatever means possible to do such a thing. They will not listen to reason, they will not debate.

John Kerry, while pretending that he will wage a war against the terroist talks about retaliation, not preemption. We need preemptive strikes, not to wait until we are attacked again and then respond. And John Kerry is once again proving that he is exactly the same man who he was when he came home from Vietnam and turned traitor to all those who served in Vietnam by labeling them war criminals.

He says he is proud of them but he is willing to put them and us in harms way to win the approval of the Franch and German communities by telling the enemy that he will pull the troops of of Iraq within 6 moinths after he is elected president. That's what we need in a commander in chief, a person who is willing to tell the enemy our plans and intentions.

But none of this is going to change the mind of those of you who seem to think that Saddam Hussein was never a threat to the world, that there were no WMD's or that John Kerry will tell the truth but George Bush lied.

If John Kerry tells the truth, then our soldiers in Vietnam were baby killers and those 8 honorable soldiers he parades out there with him during his convention are not honorable, they are war criminals. If John Kerry told the truth, then our pulling out of South Vietnam was honorable, even though it caused the death of thousands of South Vietnamese civilians in the killing fields. If John Kerry told the truth, then his picture prominently displayed in the North Vietnamese musueam thanking the war demonstrators for helping them in their victory is an honor and not a disgrace. If John Kerry told the truth, then the soldiers who srved in Vietnam deserved their disgrace when they returned home and America had a right to question their nobility. But if he lied then where do we stand.

Since the war I have had the priveledge of meeting many who served in Vietnam, they tell me he lied, just like the swift vets say that he lied. They tell me the events he described didn't happen and they never witnessed any such event. I guess they are the ones lying to us. And good ol' John is telling the truth.

And if he's telling the truth, than he himself is a war criminal because he told us that he pariticipated in these crimes and then, medals or not, his time in Vietnam was not honorable. SO go ahead and believe John Kerry and his camp of supporters who want to place a war criminal in the oval office, but stop the WMD lies and deceptions. If John Kerry tells the truth, then there were WND's-after all, he told you so.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 16, 2004 12:55 PM

TRUTH! The WORLD knew Saadam was a hugh problem in Iraq! The WORLD knew of his brutal attacks on his own people, and the WORLD knew he didn't like Democracy, he was in fact a Dictator! The WORLD is glad he was ousted! The WORLD should have been included in this fight! GW JR. was WRONG in turning up his nose at the U.N., GW JR. was WRONG in not pushing for solid ally support and WRONG for ignoring a peaceful resolution with Iraq.

http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/jphuck/Book10Ch.9.html

Bush provided the American public and the global community with numerous pieces of misinformation and disinformation in a bid to gain support for his:

1. George W. Bush made a decision to go to war at least one year before he invaded Iraq. In March 2002, Bush told National Security Advisor Rice, “F___ Saddam. We’re taking him out.”

In late 2002, the CIA was approached by Syrian intermediaries with an unusual offer that reportedly came from General Tahir Jalil Habbush, Saddam Hussein’s chief of intelligence. The Iraqis allegedly wanted to avert war and were willing to go to great lengths to appease the Bush administration, which eventually might have included permitting the deployment of United States troops in Iraq and free elections. (Newsweek, November 10, 2003)

It's not what GW JR. did, its how he did it! Read this article for yourself!

http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/jphuck/Book10Ch.9.html

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 16, 2004 01:18 PM

I guess the truth here is that the liberal Democrats out there would still support Kerry even if Bush were to completely eliminate terrorists, single-handedly push the Dow above 13,000, drop the price of gas to .25 cents a gallon, end crime, completely end homelessness and poverty, and get everyone together for a round of hand-holding Kum-Bah-Ya.

Please, you liberal Democrats don't care about what the truth is, or what accomplichments have been made. All you care about is seeing another Democrat as President. Yeah, there's common sense for you, go ahead and vote yourself a tax hike!

Posted by: Lawmann at August 16, 2004 03:03 PM

Read John F. Kennedy's inagrual adress before you vote today or in November. He was right on the mark in simular times. This counter should bare any burden, pay any price, and make any sacrafice to make the whole world free. But don't take my word for it his speeches are easy to find and well worth it.

The Democrat party of today has sure strayed alot from his vison.

Posted by: Dante at August 16, 2004 03:14 PM

I LOVE YOU PRESIDENT BUSH! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

Posted by: Jenny at August 16, 2004 04:11 PM

D. Jones

I just came from Jim Huck's web site that you promote and quote from. Obviously Mr. Huck has a major problem with conservatives and Republicans. Various quotes are not only taken out of context but are from people who proved to have lied to the bipartisan 9/11 commission.

Taking this guys word as truth is like accepting Michael Moore's version of the 9/11 attacks. Lot's and lot's of speculative reinterpretation but absolutely no balance.

Bush isn't perfect, but according to Huck, he's the spawn of Satan and makes accusation and assaults without offering a balance at all.

He's not even willing to consider that anything Bush has ever done is worthy of any positive recognition, all the while giving John Kerry a complete pass.

By the way, much of Huck's SPECULATION has already gone through the newsmill and has proven to have little to no validity. This from a media that is pushing the Kerry agenda.

Nice Try, but quoting from a venomous source with absolutely no attempt to be fair reveasls not only the author's motives, but your own as well.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 16, 2004 04:47 PM

D.

Bush has ally support, he just does not have France and Germany. No big loss.

The U.N. is going through an investigation for the oil for food program.

We tried for a peaceful solution with Iraq. Can you peacefully resolve something with a guy that will burn the flesh off of his own people?

Your article is biased and probably misinformation in itself. Tommy Franks said we were right to take Saddam out by force.

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 17, 2004 01:04 PM

d. jones, Just how long was the United States supposed to wait while the UN dragged it's feet in the sand? Another 4 years? Another 8 years? Just how long. How many more sanctions did you think it would take before Sadam finally saw the light and lived up to his end of the bargain HE signed at the end of hostilities during the Gulf War? Noticed I said end of hostilities, because the war was never over since Sadam did not live up to even ONE UN resolution.

Should we have waited for Germany, France, China, and the Russians to get on board? Sure we should have, so they could continue to make Billions off of illegal contracts to Sadam's governtent.

Fact: 27 Russian Mig planes made after 1996 were found buried in the Iraqi desert. Oh I forgot, President Bush planted those there.

Fact: 10 Missles with engines made in China that allowed the missles to go over 40 miles past the distance allowed by the UN sanctions.

Fact: France had future oil contracts with Iraq if they averted the US from invading.

Fact: Kofi Annan and his brood made Billions off the UN oil for food program.

Fact: Sadam Hussan made Billions off the oil for food program.

These are just a few of the things uncovered since the invasion of Iraq. No wonder they voted against the use of force.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 17, 2004 01:27 PM

"Your article is biased and probably misinformation in itself"

The other postings were some what intelligent. The quote above concerns me. Why is all information against Kerry i.e. swiftboats, etc. considered the truth and all information against GW JR. i.e. Michael Moore 911, etc. considered biased and PROBABLY misinformation.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 17, 2004 03:05 PM

D. Jones,
I would like you to respond to Jame's post on Aug 15. You slam President Bush for doing what the Democrats said needed to be done.(Who by the way are all attacking President Bush for doing what they were afraid to do) Please respond with a thoughfull answer not slanerous accusations.

James set it on the tee for you, lets see how far you can drive it.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 17, 2004 04:15 PM

Sorry I meant slanderous.

Anyway I found this link and I thought I would share it with you folks. It takes about 5 minutes to see it all, but I think it's worth it. Remember this happened to us and our President is doing everything he can to keep it from happening again. Maybe you should give him a break, and be thankfull for what has not happened since this day.

President Bush responded to this attack with force and conviction and that is why he will get my vote this year. I for one will never forget.

http://members.cox.net/classicweb/Heroes/heroes.htm

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 17, 2004 06:37 PM

I have always stated that GW JR. used WMD's as a excuse to go after Saddam! He wanted Saddam for personal reasons! Saddam used WMD's in the past. We all knew that. GW JR. is the Supreme Court Appointed President of the U.S. it was up to him to carefully weigh all information he had regarding WMD's and make an intelligent decision. The dummy didn't do that. If he was following the advice of the Dems. I would have asked them if they were so sure WMD's were in Iraq why didn't they launch a full scale attack, or at least I would have wondered why they didn't.

Then, the question won't be (as it was in Watergate): 'What did the president know, and when did he know it?' GW JR., a know-nothing president, apparently had neither the interest nor the intellectual capacity to question the information he was receiving. The question will be: 'What did the president not know, and when didn't he know it?' His on scandal blew up in his face. From what I know about GW JR, this was bound to happen. He is a walking time bomb and it finally exploded. I hope the Country (Not just the Dems.) takes him through the ringer for being dumb! I am sorry, I have no sympathy for the man, just and has no sympathy on some of his policies. He made his own bed, how he has to lie in it.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 17, 2004 07:07 PM

Devil Dawg at August 17, 2004 04:15 PM

I said GW JR. lied to the America people and he did, based on faulty intelligence. That is his fault. Please don't twist my words.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 17, 2004 07:10 PM

To D. Jones,
I wasn't slamming President Bush. I provided the quotes to prove how the Democrats have changed their tune about WMD's. I support the President in the War and tax cuts (i just wish he wouldn't spend so much of my money in discretionary spending). I actually plan on voting for Bednarik (the Libertarian candidate) but only because Bush has a 17 point lead in N.C. (looks like that Edwards nomination really worked here, lol. 3/4 of the state can't stand him and he would have gotten creamed in his reelection bid). Hope that answered your statement. (looks like 320 down the center of the fairway to me)

Posted by: James at August 17, 2004 07:27 PM

Devil Dog, Chris

"because the war was never over since Sadam did not live up to even ONE UN resolution."

How long do you think we will have to fight this war? Saddam is gone, but his followers will fight for years and years to come and history will repeat itself. This is not a war! If it were the U.S. would have wiped out the whole country. i.e. Japan!!! Get real with yourselves and stop defending GW JR. He messed up and now he will be held accountable!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 17, 2004 07:31 PM

Did you know that when Bush ran for President in 2000 while Governor of Texas, he returned his salary to the state for every day he was away campaigning? I call that a man with morals, values and principles.

I wonder if Kerry is doing that?

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 17, 2004 11:44 PM

D. Jones

The argument you positioned for us is backwards. The news media has given Kerry a pass. They've given Michael Moore a pass. The Swift vets are being attacked on a daily basis.

There have been many Bush supporters on most of these blogs at soft vote that are willing to admit that Bush made some mistakes, he is after all only human, but his planning and his insight and his attempts at keeping America safe are mostly on target.

You posts, on the other hand have been a constant attack on Bush without once admitting the remote possibility that Bush has done anything right.

Some of the Swift Vets DO have an agenda. Some of the Swift Vets are life-long republicans, others are not. John O'Neill has been a constant force of intergrity, has supported both democratic and republican candidates and perhaps knows the politcs of John Kerry better than anybody else. He has been challenging Kerry's record on Vietnam for 30 years. The charges he makes remain unchanged, unlike John Kerry's version of the truth.

You defend John Kerry. Answer this. What piece of legislation in the 18 years as a Senator did John Kerry ever sponser and get passed? If that is his track record as a Senator, how can we possibly imagine he will get any of his promises through the Congress and Senate.

George Bush, while attached for being a conservative has allowed many non-conservative issues to become law, encouraged some of them because President Bush understands that a centrist viewpoint meets with the needs of more Americans. Look at his position of stem cell research, rather than ban it, as Kerry has wrongly accused him, he has granted more research money than the previous administration even though the more conservative veiwpoint is a complete ban on embryonic stem cell reasearch.

In an effort to win votes John Kerry has called for an immediate and complete enactment of the proposals of the 9/11 comission report. Even the authors of the reports say that isn't what they want. They want debate and planning so this is done in a way that reinforces the progress that the Bush Administration has made but increases that work and makes it more efficient.

If you watched the hearings today, you would have heard the questions and concerns all of which need to be considered before we rush to enact something that might in fact harm our intelligence gathering machine.

I am certain of the direction George Bush wants to make for this country. He has plainly and clearly set a course. Through tax cuts that encourage jobs. Through a careful study of environmental issues, tempored with the needs of the communities and America in general. Less reliance on foreign energy supplies by encouraging the development of new energy sources. A realignment of the milatary to remove troops from European borders that no longer need protection and the force and serve as an insult to some of our European Allies as well as a reluctance to trust the Soviet Union. A change of strategy on South Korea, returning more power to the existing government which has a massive and trained military with almost 4 million in their own reserves. A drive to make sure that every child graduates from high school with ability to read, perform basic math skills and be better prepared for a future as a productive force in the country.

In the short term he has been in office we have seen results even with a terrorist attack and a war on terror. Teachers who have implemented his plan report an increase in grade school children who can read. Manufacturing jobs are higher than it was when he took office.

As a resident of Pennsylvania, the lack of manufacturing jobs has less to do with the president than it does have to with our Democratic Governor who is stopping the influx of manufacturing jobs by passing regulations that scare them aware from our states because he doesn't want to offend his environmentalist backers.

The fiasco of our neighboring state New Jersey, again the scenario of a Democrat as governor who stifles job influx while giving the job of a security director in the state to an unqualified man he wanted to have sex with. His actions placed New York and Phildelphia at risk and we're supposed to just give him a pass on this.

I've had enough of the special interests and I'll believe John Kerry when he brings the Hienz plants back to America, finally tells us the true story of his Vietnam career (there are at least 5 different versions of that from Kerry's own lips) and when he denounces the special interests that have controled his own checkered career. I'll belive he has integrity when he demands that his picture is removed from a Communist Country thanking him for helping them win the war in Vietnam and denounces their actions in the killing fields and their attempts to hide our MIA's.

No, President Bush isn't perfect, but he's working for the good of all Americans and for the future of America.

People are asking when Bush is going to ask them to stop the Swift Boat Ads. He has, but he hasn't singled that ad out he's has publicly stated that all of the 527 ads should be removed from the air waves. John Kerry hasn't done that, he only demands the removal the anti-Kerry ads.

Kerry has stood on the same stage as people called Bush a War monger, a thug, a liar, and today stood on the stage with a public official who called Dick Cheney a Coward. Where is his cry of civility, where is his denouncement of such political tactics. No, he says that is free speech.

John Hurley of Veterans for truth said on Chris Matthews last week that Rassman was thrown off Kerry's boat after Kerry hit a mine. Rassman said he was on another boat that hit the mine. They he said he was on Kerry's boat, then he said he was on another boat. This week Hurley said Rassman was on another boat with no apology for what he said last week. Maybe we could belive them if they could get their stories straight.

O'Neil was attacked as being a republican, which was a lie, but nobody atacked Hurley for being a Democrat. O'Neil has been attacked by alledged ties to Republican supporters but noboy mentions Rassman's involvement with the ACLU. WHY? For the exact oppisite reason you stated by declaring that we give the Swift Vets a pass and say they are right but Kerry is wrong.

To even debate the authenticity of the Michael Moore documentary is futile. Richard Clarke is misrepresented in the film-he authorized the flight of the Saudi's. The Florida Newspaper is misrepresented, the headline he used never existed. A soldier he represented as being opposed to the war is furious and says that he was also misrepresented by Moore. This is no more a documentary than Oliver Stone's JFK is a true picture of the assasination. Moore's film has about as much truth in it as The Untouchables. It's based on real events, but everything's been changed to protect the political viewpoint of Michael Moore.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 18, 2004 02:15 AM

D. Jones,

I guess I'm a little confused by some of the things you have posted. You say that the World wanted Saddam gone, and that they are glad he has been ousted.

What, exactly, could Bush (or anybody else in the United States) have done to get the participation of the World in the ouster of Saddam Hussein? Did the World, as you call it, not have several months to participate in the run-up to the war? Have they not had over a year to participate in the aftermath? Are you trying to say that Bush said the wrong things to the Russians or the French and now they don't want to play ball with us but if he had only been more sensitive they would have taken the lead in disarming the dictator?

You also say that Bush ignored a peaceful solution to removing a dictator in Iraq. What peaceful solutions have been succesfully employed to remove dictators in the past?

To be honest, I don't claim omniscience, but I cannot think of a single instance of a dictator being removed completely by peaceful means. And, even if it has happened a couple of times throughout history, what evidence do you have that Saddam would have relented in the face of these peaceful means? It seems to me he was a murderer in the same vein as Stalin, Hitler, Kim Jong-Il, Mussolini, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Khomeini, Castro, Qadaffi, and Hafez Assad.

I don't think someone who kills his people can be removed by peaceful means. John Kerry talks about being sensitive with these people but the sad fact is that they only thing they listen to is the business end of an M-16. If France and Russia and Germany had wanted to be a part of the coalition that removed this tyrant, they had ample opportunity. Bush begged and pleaded and coaxed and cajoled for several months. He finally gave up on them and removed Saddam in the only way it would have ever happened, by applying overwhelming force from the countries who did realize their self-interest was threatened by Hussein and his ilk.

These two questions are very simple and direct. If John Kerry can answer them in a simple and direct way, he will be the next president. If not, George Bush will get 4 more years. It's as simple as that.

1. What, exactly, could Bush (or anybody else in the United States) have done to get the participation of the World in the ouster of Saddam Hussein?

2. What peaceful solutions have been succesfully employed to remove dictators in the past?

Posted by: John at August 18, 2004 11:11 AM

d.,

Because the swiftboat people have facts to back themselves up. Michael Moore has been discredited time and again. That is why. Give me some real facts, and I mean real, and I will listen.

Posted by: David Lowery at August 18, 2004 11:23 AM

Wow! its quiet, did I run all the GW JR. Supporters off?

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at August 18, 2004 12:57 PM

d. jones,
Why don't you review your history. When Berlin fell it was over 2 years before the insurgants were finally overcome. The way it was done, was the Russians were getting tired of the constant ambushes so they gave them fair warning that they would start killing 100 people a day until the insurgents were either turned in or gave themselves up. Nothing happened, so the Russians grabbed 100 civilians off the street, men, women, and children. Lined them up and shot them. Guess what happened then, the people started turning the insurgents in almost instantly. The Russians did not have to do it again, insurgents were stopped.

Unfortunatly in this day of political correctness the US could not do that. I say we take the ones we capture and cover them in pig skins. I'm betting that will bring a halt to this c***.

No one said the war would end quickly, but the people of Iraq have to take a stand to stop the insurgents. Otherwise, unless President Bush turns loose the hounds (read let the Marines do what they do best) this will go on for a long time. Al-Sadyr says he does not recognize the Iraqi government because it is a American puppet, yet he continues to slow progress towards elections. He has no desire for anything but a Dictatorship.

He is a coward, this lates peace agreement is only a stall so he can get more militia gathered up and he will do the same thing again. It happened 3 months ago and it will happen again. Only the next time the Marines will not stop at the gates of the Mosck, they will take him out in a body bag.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 18, 2004 06:19 PM

To be honest, I thought I ran everyone off. Believe it or not, I am glad to hear from you all. I couldn't see you giving up without at least an intelligent fight.

OK!

James, I was not attacking you personally, I was asked about your posting and I responded, please don't take it as a personal attack. I am glad to see you are voting independantly! That shows me you don't need to be led by and individual or party.

Posted by: d. jones at August 18, 2004 06:49 PM

Hey D. Jones,
Where, when, and why did you decide that President Bush had a personal agenda against Sadam Hussen? Where are you getting your inside information? If you follow the posts, you seem to be the one making bold accusations with nothing to back it up.

The reason we did not bomb that country back to the stone ages is because Sniveling little Liberal Weasles like you will be crying over the loss of life. The times have changed, it's 2004 not 1945. Personally I think we should make a sheet of glass out of the whole middle east, but that won't happen. I think we should storm every Iraqi city that is causing our troops trouble and go house to house killing anything with a weapon. But in todays world that would be bad. War is Hell, people die or get maimed. That's a fact of war.

This is what I hope to see when President Bush is re-elected. I hope to see him tell the world to butt out and turn the Marines loose on the insurgents.

Oh why don't you do yourself a favor and read something besides those liberal rags you cite? You would find out that Iran, Syria, as well as a host of other countries have sent people into Iraq to stir up trouble for the Troops. Thousands of Iranians poured over the borders into Iraq at the start of the invasion with orders to disrupt the Americans and start a resistance. 90% of the Iraqi people are glad they were liberated.

Have you read the stoy of the little boy, who turned his own father in and showed the US troops where more weapons were at as well as hide outs? A boy turns in his own father who was a member of the Iraqi military before we invaded and was heading up a resistance cell.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 18, 2004 06:58 PM

News Flash for Calamity!!

"he returned his salary to the state for every day he was away campaigning?"

Bush and the Bush Family are very very wealthy!!

gosh! DUH!!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at August 18, 2004 07:17 PM

Gosh Mr. Jones, you've finally said something true about George Bush. Yes he is rich and he was willing to give up some of that wealth to do the right thing.

Kerry is very rich as well, will he do the right thing? That was the question that you didn't answer.

It's obvious that you come to these groups, not because you have a point or a solid debate, but simply to irratate supporters of Bush. You are often agumentative and innacurate in your quotes, pulling only from biased web sites and other hate orientated organizations.

I am really offended by Kerry's campaign slogan. Take America Back. This is paramount to waging a war against anyone who has a different opinion than him. It is Paramount to saying that any who oppose his views are Unamerican. That offends me.

I am an American and I do belive that America is going in the wrong direction. That direction is being forced upon American by radical judges, trial lawyers and rengade politicians on both the republican and democratic side. The poll that quotes this statistic is being used against George Bush but everyone I've spoken to is closer to the view I've stated.

They are the ones who are trying, not to take America back, but to take America in a direction it was not designed to do through the constitution. That is the agenda that John Kerry backs. It's not about taking America back, it about giving America to the special interest groups and those who have declared Americans to be their enemy.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 18, 2004 08:07 PM

d jones

You are a fool!! And Kerry isn't wealthy?

It's not even about money. It's about principles, values and morals. Something you apparently aren't familiar with. All you do is play victim. Only someone who thinks they are a victim would vote for Kerry. He does nothing for us working stiffs. I don't need no stinking handouts!!

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 18, 2004 08:34 PM

Jim Rodkey

I am with you 100%. I also think the polls are getting the wrong message when they ask if the country is going in the right or wrong direction. Americans want their country back - we want to take it back from the liberals like Kerry who are trying to rewrite our laws for their loony agendas.

How about Edwards and his two Americas? - another insult to our intelligence.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 18, 2004 08:55 PM

Oh and D. jones

You wouldn't run us off. Bush supporters don't run and hide. We stand by what we say.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 18, 2004 09:00 PM

Jim Rodkey

I am with you 100%. I also think the polls are getting the wrong message when they ask if the country is going in the right or wrong direction. Americans want their country back - we want to take it back from the liberals like Kerry who are trying to rewrite our laws for their loony agendas.

How about Edwards and his two Americas? - another insult to our intelligence.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 18, 2004 09:02 PM

Calamaity: "I don't need no stinking handouts!!" You were speaking of Bush not Kerry!

What you need is a brain, and you wouldn't be here posting how great you think GW JR. is.

Jim Rodkey: "want to take it back from the liberals like Kerry who are trying to rewrite our laws for their loony agendas."

You already have it with GW JR and many laws have already been rewritten that favor his warped views. I don't have to go over them again as Colin Powell knew there were not WMD's you know what GW JR. is doing.

Jim again:

"I am really offended by Kerry's campaign
slogan."

Please let's not get on campaign slogans. I have five good one's for the GW JR. campaign.

5. Mission Accom-- Hey, Look, the NCAA Tourney Is On!
4. Vote for Bush! Or Don't, and I'll Just Have the Supreme Court Take Care of It Again.
3. Tax and Spend -- Without The Tax!
2. C'mon Guys, Don'tcha Want a Boss, Xitchin', Supercool Moon Base?!?
1. Vote Bush: It's a No-Brainer!

As far as your contributions to this site they are meaningless and without sources.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 18, 2004 09:10 PM

d.

Your posts are the most meaningless of them all. They consist of insults mixed with no-nothing facts.

Have you stopped to think that people might be disgusted with you and that's why they don't post? I prefer to exchange information and opinions with others - not trade insults.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 18, 2004 10:32 PM

"You are a fool!! And Kerry isn't wealthy?"

My Apologies Calamity, like GW JR. himself you can dish it out, but you can't take it. BTW, I thought you posting was very intelligent.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 19, 2004 12:00 AM

Ok, enough dirty politics. Let's get down to business.

Clark slams Bush's troop recall plan

Monday 16 August 2004, 23:28 Makka Time, 20:28 GMT

Clark says the timing of Bush's plan seems politically motivated

US Democrats blasted President George Bush's plan to bring home up to 70,000 troops from Europe and Asia, calling it dangerous, ill-conceived and a ploy to boost his attempt for re-election.

"How can we withdraw troops from Korea while engaged in a delicate negotiation with the North Koreans? There's a country that really does have weapons of mass destruction"

Richard Holbrooke,
adviser to John Kerry

Posted by: d. jones at August 19, 2004 12:52 AM

Interesting Article: I must honetly say, I back Kerry on this.

Source:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/08/18/politics1457EDT0592.DTL

Among the sentiments that would seem to favor Bush:

* Nine in 10 say taking measures to protect the United States from terrorist attacks is a top priority.

* Six in 10 say the use of military force can sometimes be justified against countries that may seriously threaten this country but have not attacked.

* Bush is seen as stronger on handling terrorism than Kerry.

Others would seem to favor Kerry:

* Two-thirds are worried about a loss of respect internationally by the United States and most think that is a major problem.

* Six in 10 say the Bush administration is too quick to use force rather than trying harder for diplomatic solutions.

* People were more inclined to say that foreign policy should take allies' interests into account than to say foreign policy should be based mostly on U.S. interests.

Posted by: d. jones at August 19, 2004 01:03 AM

Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - Page updated at 12:33 A.M.

Source:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002006779_williams17.html

Guest columnist
Bush's tax-cut policies put economy in the tank

By Walter Williams
Special to The Times

The results are crystal clear. Bush's performance is the worst for job creation in the first two years of an economic recovery and second from last in gross domestic product (GDP) growth, as compared with the eight earlier postwar recoveries from recession.

No president in the past 60 years, save George Herbert Walker Bush, has failed so miserably in his economic performance. But to see how bad President Bush's economic policies have been, we must work through the numbers. It's worth the effort.

Consider the percentage change in jobs from the bottom of each of the postwar recessions to 28 months into the recovery. Before the early 1990s, job increases averaged over 7 percent; the elder Bush gained only 2 percent; and the current recovery, as of March 2004 (the report's cutoff date), had produced no job growth.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 19, 2004 01:08 AM

Hey d.,

Why don't you get some sources that are not skewed to the left? Give some sources that are independent and we can talk. I don't listen to Rush and take everything he says as gospel, you shouldn't do the same with Walter Williams. If you look close enough you can see that’s an opinion piece. Please quit acting as if you are stupid, I can see from your post that you are not.

Posted by: David Lowery at August 19, 2004 01:29 PM

David,

That is the fist time I have ever heard of Walter Willims. The man is entitled to his own opinion whether GW JR. supporters consider it "left" or not. What do suggest I do. Get my information from the GW JR. Web Site? I don't think so. I may even throw up!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 19, 2004 01:50 PM

There you go again d. purposely misinterpreting what I said.

No I would not want you to get your info from the Presidents web site, no more then I would get mine from Kerry's website. I would get my info from no partisan web sites like factcheck.org, they tell it like it is, for both of them. Please don't insult my intelligence, where in my post did I say that you should go to the President's website? Are you that clouded that you can't even read a simple post?

GW in '04
4 more years
4 more years
GWB all the way.

Posted by: David Lowery at August 19, 2004 04:10 PM

d.

Do you look at anything other then leftwing websites? Clark is a democrat; of course he's going to be against it. Please go to a non-partisan website and quote me some good facts, not just opinions. I could find thousands of negative opinions about Kerry. Does that make them true? No, please I know you are smarter then that, or is it that you have no ammo to work with so you throw crap?

Posted by: David Lowery at August 19, 2004 04:16 PM

Hey D,
Could you please tell me what laws the Bush Adminstration has changed. You tell us to read the opinion piece and of all places it comes from the Times, the most liberal News Paper in the Country.
Why don't you take more time and find something worthy of reading instead of insulting the President and people who disagree with you.

It has been said that the Kerry's are worth between 1/2 to 1 Billion dollars, I'm thinking that puts them in the very wealthy catagory, one of the haves according to John Edwards.

You never seem to respond to other posts with anything but insults, you have been very entertaining to say the least.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 19, 2004 09:06 PM

I cannot believe that this is a close election. We are talking about a man who volunteered to go to Vietnam in contrast to a man who stayed in Texas and Alabama during the Vietnam War. We are talking about draft dodger George W. Bush who lied to the American people in order to take us to a preemptive war against Iraq. Hey, we are talking about George W. Bush who is anti the American middle class having the right to organize and belong to good strong labor unions. We are also talking about George W. Bush who wants to take away "time and a half" wages for working over 40 hours per week or "overtime pay" from American workers. I just cannot believe it. Vote the Kerry/Edwards ticket in November!

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at August 20, 2004 12:31 AM

"I would get my info from no partisan web sites like factcheck.org,."

David,

You see that's what's so very wrong the current GW JR Administration. They don't want anyone to think for themselves, they want to tell us what to do as you are suggesting regarding my post sources. Don't you think I have enough sense to know that any source you tell me to go to will be biased towards Bush! I am still in shock about the swiftboat lies in the Washington Post. I guess that's a liberal site as well. Oh well. I will look at your site anyway, but I already know what type of information it will contain.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 20, 2004 11:00 AM

Abel,

Actually, if you want to be perfectly honest about this it was Kerry who dodged the draft. When his number came for the draft up he joined the Navy to avoid serving in the Army. That's not to say this was a bad thing, it was honorable that he coose a different branch of the miltary rather than be a draft dodger. Bush's number didn't come up so he didn't have to "dodge the draft". He chose to join the Air National Guard, also honorable. Not everybody was drafted, not everybody had to serve. It was a lottery system.

According to the Labor Department as many as 107,000 workers could lose overtime eligibility under its new rules, but about 1.3 million will gain it. Sections were added to make clear that police, firefighters and other public safety officers are not exempt from overtime, regardless of rank or pay level. But labor officials say middle- and upper-ranking officers such as lieutenants still could lose overtime.

Union workers covered by contracts will not be affected by the change, though labor leaders argue that unions will face tougher negotiations when their contracts expire because of the new rules.

The rules address jobs that are targets of lawsuits, spelling out what duties would exempt them from overtime. They include pharmacists, funeral directors, embalmers, journalists, claims adjusters, dental hygienists and chefs.

"We wanted clarity and we wanted reduced litigation," Eastman said. "Business was willing to accept some potentially increased labor costs in order to get it." (from the Associated Press.)

The purpose of the legislation is stop lawyers and the likes who slap on exhorbant ovetime fees to their clients without clear representaion of real work accomplished. The law protects the worker but attacks the professional.

Let's be honest, not simply attack.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 20, 2004 11:10 AM

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 20, 2004 11:10 AM

Jim, stop twisting the truth, and please don't be so biased. Where are your sources?

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 20, 2004 11:24 AM

Jim, what you need to realize is that George W. Bush said that he was a uniter--not a divider. Well, it's obvious to me that the country is now divided more than ever. The truth is that he is now even dividing our veterans. I guess he is one of those "divide and conquer" type persons and I don't like it. Let me just say that I don't just listen to what is being said, I look at what's being done and George W. Bush has repeatedly done a lot of dumb things to say the least and I think that the American people deserve better. Vote the Kerry/Edwards ticket!

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at August 20, 2004 12:25 PM

I have just waded through the posts. I would like to directly challange many of things I read but there were just too many. Instead I'll add my own random thoughts. IRAQ: were we lied to? No. As was pointed out many on both sides thought he had WMD. Was Saddam contained? Yes, inspectors were back in the country there was considerable pressure on him not to do any thing provocative. Was the Oil for Food program mismanaged? Sure seems that way. Did the war change that? No. Could it have been managed differently once the facts came out? I think so. And the big question, Was there eminent danger to the US from Saddam? I don't think the facts show that. Could we have brought the allies along in time? I think we could have. But what it would have taken is an act of inclusion, of sharing. While I don't think we invaded simply for 'oil' I think there are many advisors to the President who were glad to hear that we would install a new government that would be 'obligated' to do business with us. Had we been willing to cut France and Russia into the financial rewards of regime change they would have been with us. Keep in mind a regime change was not in their interest. They had the contracts for current oil output and for further exploration once the sanctions were lifted. Imagine the problems Bush would have had if American oil companies had similar contracts and he had decided to support another nation's plans to their detriment. SADDAM WAS AN EVIL DESPOT! but can we afford in dollars or American lives to depose all the despots of the world? Are the Iraqi people better off? For now, but what if they end up with Shiite oppression instead of SADDAM? We won't be seeing ladies teams at the 2008 Olympics if that is the case. We are rebuilding IRAQ, not only for the damage we did in the war but the damage done by sanctions and neglect for decades. Can we afford that when our own electric infrastructure is deterioting. Have you looked at rural America and our urban inner cities. Couldn't we have used that $100 Billion for improving our own deterioting infrastructure and the lives of Americans . Americans, by the way, who make up a large majority of the armed forces that we are in such debt. I base that on the statistics showing that lower income and rural young people who find the military as the best job they could get. Want to change how we are viewed in the Middle East? Spend billions of dollars on true economic infrastructure building in those countries who are not blessed with huge oil income. Cut our dependence on middle east oil so we can truly deal with the other Tribal dictators that will be as oppressive as Saddam if their people rise up against them. It's all about money. We are hated because we have money (and flaunt it). Bush was encouraged to go to war because people make money from war. War is good for a flagging economy (short term). If we offered more true economic aid (not to be mistaken with welfare) we would be better off and I would argue that would also be more consistent with the teachings of the bible than killing people (both those who deserve it and the thousands that we have killed who did not deserve it.)

THE ECONOMY: It is improving. It always does, a captalist economy is by design cyclical. Should Bush's tax cuts get the credit for the improvement? Only in the sense that it gave a quick injection of money into the economy. If they didn't create long term deficits that would be a good thing. What really stimulated the economy was the lowering of interest rates. Consumers (and corporations)had money to spend not because they got a $400 tax break but because they could refinance their homes and reduce their mortgages $200 per month. This was more true of the lower and middle income than the rich who, unfortunately for the deficit, got much more in one time savings. Our total debt accumulation indicates that home owners borrowed against their equity. That put money into the economy too. Unfortunately as interest rates rise we may be faced with more individual bankruptcies as a result. Bush is a man that stands by his decisions. Is that a good thing when situations change? Shouldn't a good manager look at the reality of today, the consequences of past actions and adjust their positions? I know these are simplistic thoughts but in an attempt at keeping this a readable length I'll leave it so.

I'd like to touch on the other campaign issues: Separation of church and state, environmental concerns, labor policies, health care, baby boomer maturation...but my time and reasonable space prevents me from doing so.

At least I hope I have expanded the limited conversation that was taking place here.

Posted by: Rick Melchior at August 20, 2004 12:56 PM

d.

Did go look at the website?

Posted by: David Lowery at August 20, 2004 01:38 PM

Able P. Ochao

This country united after 9/11, it's the dems who have divided this country.

Posted by: David Lowery at August 20, 2004 02:04 PM

David Lowery

When you say Dems have divided this country I can't help but agree with you. When the Republicans stayed on course with their determination to fight this war on terror, the Dems whimped out, and then accused Bush of being the divider. They do not have the cajones to win - and that is why my family will not be safe with Kerry in office.

Vote W'04

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 20, 2004 05:22 PM

David Lowery,

Yes, our country was united after 9/11 but George W. Bush as brand new President was really looking for an excuse to attack Iraq and Saddam. Remember? At that time, His advisers convinced him that he first needed to attack Afghanistan's Taliban because of Ossama Bin Laden but because he was really after Iraq's oil, he quickly found the excuse he needed to attack Iraq. Just remember that Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorists who brought down NY's twin towers. The rest of the world was with us when we went after bin Laden but wasn't prepared to go to war against Iraq. Can you blame them? Nevertheless, George W. Bush insisted on going after Saddam and finally attacked Iraq and got all of us into this mess that we're in. You need to remember that we had Saddam all "boxed in"--he couldn't even fly airplanes over Iraq without us blowing them off the sky. He even buried some to keep them safe from our fighter airplanes. We controlled Iraq's Northern as well as its Southern "No Fly Zones." Remember? On top of that, we had our UN Inspectors roaming the rest of Iraq looking for WMDs. George W. Bush lied when he told us that Iraq and Saddam presented an imminent danger/threat to us. Unfortunately the timid souls in Congress believed George W Bush and gave him a blank check to attack Iraq if necessary. Some Democrats, including John Kerry, are just as guilty as the Republicans in allowing him to commit this agression. Nevertheless, because George W. Bush is the "Commander In Chief," he needs to accept responsibility for the many grave mistakes he has made. He obviously has forgotten "The Buck Stops Here" concept as he has refused to accept any responsibillty--One would think that someone else is President.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at August 20, 2004 11:26 PM

As an active duty soldier, I despise Kerry and Edwards. They would turn America into a nation of sheep. When (not if) the wolf comes knocking, the current administration will not hesitate to unleash the dogs of war. By his own admission, Kerry returned to pick up a fallen soldier. Had he not fled in the first place, HE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO RETURN. In respect to Bush avoiding war service, if war dodging were so bad, why did we have 8 years of Clinton?
Why is it that it is ok for the Kerry/Edwards campaign to benefit from ads and movies from the likes of Michael Moore, George Soros, and various Hollywood celebrities, but the Bush/Cheney ticket is catching so much heat for the Swift Boat ads?

Bush '04 No Other Option

Posted by: Joe at August 21, 2004 01:02 AM

d.
Did go look at the website?
Posted by: David Lowery at August 20, 2004 01:38 PM

Yes David, I went to the website www.factcheck.org, and I think it is very good. I haven't researched the funding and those behind the scenes i.e. Owner, Webmaster, etc! What exactly am I looking for on that site. I saw one thing that disturbes me and will address is on the Kerry site. Can you say you will do the same for my posting against the current GW JR. Administration. So far my facts and opinion against the current GW JR. administration remains the same.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 21, 2004 02:22 AM

Posted by: Rick Melchior at August 20, 2004 12:56 PM

"No. As was pointed out many on both sides thought he had WMD."

GW JR's Administration knew Iraq didn't have WMD's! Do you think Colin Powell a General who server under Reagan and President Bush Sr. didn't know about this. Do you think our Top Military Official's and Secretary Of State (Third in line of the Presidency) is that dumb? I know GW JR. is, but he is simply a pawn for the rest of his Administration.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 21, 2004 04:49 AM

Our current President has done an outstanding job thus far. It pains me greatly to see and hear jon kerry and his goons attack, harass and, abuse this great President. Has he done everything right? No. Do i agree with him 100%? No. However there, in a free society, will never be 100% of the popualtion in 100% agreement with any administraiton. Nor will there ever be 100% agreement on everything that President does,
especially by the group of people that suppourt him. John kerry's supportters thrive on hatered, deathof americans and the american way. Not once in the almost 3 yrs now that john has been campaigning for the position of President of the United States of America has he stated his plan for the next 4 years
all we hear is that he was in veitnam for 4 months, all of which took place over 30yrs ago and has no berring or relevence in this election. Heck i wasn't even born yet!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: brandon at August 21, 2004 12:07 PM

Jim Rodkey,

Well it so happens that during the Vietnam War era, if one joined the National Guard, one was regarded as being a draft dodger. Now, of course, it's different since we're send men from the National Guard into Iraq on an almost daily basis but this is now and I'm talking about the way it was during the Vietnam era. You're correct about workers lucky enough to be union members not being effected by the new laws doing away with overtime wages. I wasn't talking about them either, I'm talking about many non-union workers who depend on overtime to make it through the month. Many of these workers will find their wages slowly diminishing. Others will be reclassified as managers, etc., by greedy companies in order to save some money. Lets remember one thing, that our country used to belong to the working people too but that's quickly changing--it now belongs to the wealthy corporations and other powerful interests. I'm deeply concerned about the path George W. Bush is taking our country and I think it's past time he returns to Texas where he won't be able to do us much harm.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at August 21, 2004 12:31 PM

D,

Let's go back to the events after 911. America was United. Statements by John Kerry backed the president, statements by the democrats backed the President, statements by the world backed the President. We decided to go to war against TERRORISM. Not just Afghan, not just Bin Laden but against terrorism. That's a monumental task.

What has changed since then? The Kerry support has certainly changed. The sources would take forever to list just do a web search on Kerry's comments on the war on Iraq. These statements were made on the press, on every news outlet and on the floor of the Senate.

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee Kerry had the chance to review the breifings and reports that you and I were not priveledged to, a point Kerry made clear in his claims and stated that this was why he was backing the president. Again, what has changed. The war is still about terrorism, terrorist are still committing atrocities and those who supported the president now are people who supported him them.

The division then, by logical connection must be the opponents of the president. Suddenyl the rules of debate have changed. Suddenly the record matters but only if the record doesn't point out the support of the president. Now it's the president lied.

Many in the media support this notion, even though they know it's not true. Even though the 911 commission reports otherwise but they know something about us. They know we won't investigate and we will take their word for it. Or worse, we will turn to our pundits who spout political diatribe based loosely on facts and not on realitites. That's true of both sides. How many who attack the swift vets have read the book? How many who attack Kerry have studied his record for themselves? How many people who claim they are concerned about safety have taken the time to read the 911 report?

I agree with you that the country is divided, but the division in my opinion, is based on a headlong rush to spout hatred against the president that the majority were all once standing behind. The issues that divide us are mostly differences of opinion but many on the left are trying to make their opinions the law. Forcing Gay marriage without seeking the recourse of law through state consitutional change is an example. Attacking the Christian Community for religious symbols while promoting other religions is another. Communities are no longer free to decide for themselves but the outside intervention of the ACLU. These are the things that divide the country.

Look, there are a lot of things that are wrong with this country but there are a lot of things that are right as well. We reach the deceision by engaging in debate and careful exploration of constitutional changes, not by forcing those changes down on anybody. Tradition must be respected by progressives, while change must be understood by traditionalists.

Let me ask you a simple question. When it comes to acts of violence committed against other members of the community, when it comes to violent demonstrations who ranks higher in the score? During the Democratic convention, the opposition to John Kerry staged mostly non-violent protests, the liberals are threatening violence. Who is being divisive?

You know, the sad part is that I really want to hear what they have to say but it's hard to listen to them and respect them when they are so unwilling to listen to what the otherside has to say and simply shout the opponents down in interviews.

This, of course is just my opinion. Formed, like you, on the sources I read and the information I've digested. I don't want to stifle you or anyone who opposes my view. I can't learn that way, but I don't want others stifling my views-I can't learn that way as well.

By the way, many of my sources about Kerry simply come from the Kerry camps website, Kerry's Senate records that are avaialble online and then on various op-ed pieces that range from the New York Times to the The Washington Post. Still more comes from the books I've already sited.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 21, 2004 01:23 PM

Devil Dawg,
So you are saying that you have to go to vietnam and not be a draft dodger to be elected? Hell Clinton got elected twice and didn't even serve in the national guard. Gore served in the national guard (like President Bush), but there was nothing wrong with his not serving in vietnam when he and Slick Willy ran huh? Glad the Democrats are staying on one side of the story other wise we might get confused.
Vote Bednarik

Posted by: James at August 21, 2004 03:20 PM

Re: Jim Rodkey at August 21, 2004 01:23 PM

Yeah! But Bush didn't volunteer to go to Vietnam. Instead the traitor decided to stay home. That's the big difference between The Dummy One and Kerry - the true-and-tried American hero.

Bush is an inept, incompetent, immature traitor for allowing the opening of our floodgates to Third World, undesirable, unassimibale elements.

Demographics has its consequences.

Posted by: Kattivik at August 21, 2004 03:40 PM

"unassimibale"

Make that "unassimilable."

My apologies to the Webmaster.

Now I'll just stay in the background, keep a low profile, and read the rest of the posts.

Demographics: the national issue.

Posted by: Kattivik at August 21, 2004 04:00 PM

Kattivik

Did you know that Kerry has promised all illegals a path to citizenship in his first 100 days in office? He even promised this at a speech in front of La Raza.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0629e.html

Think again.

Besides - Bush is not the one who made Vietnam an issue in this campaign.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 21, 2004 04:41 PM

Posted by: Kattivik at August 21, 2004 03:40 PM

THis posting by Kattivik shows he doesn't check his facts before posting:

Bush is an inept, incompetent, immature traitor for allowing the opening of our floodgates to Third World, undesirable, unassimibale elements.

My reply: Kattivik - Bush is not the one who opened those floodgates. During the Clinton Adminstration was when immigration was increased. Do not blame Bush for starting it, although I do blame him for not stopping it.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 21, 2004 10:00 PM

This is not correct:

When someone within the Bush Administration leaked to the media the existence of Pakistan informant Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan,

It was a PAKISTANI OFFICAL who leaked the name. This was in the news. Toss that theory out the window. IT was NOT the Bush adminstration!!

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 21, 2004 11:29 PM

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 21, 2004 01:23 PM

Hey Jim,

Let's discuss the two Wars.

Who ever said the war on Iraq, which congress approved, including Kerry, is the same as the "war on terrorism."?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-09-15-administration_x.htm

"Administration says it could fight wars against terror and Iraq"

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration insisted Sunday that the U.S. military can simultaneously fight terrorism and confront Iraq, as White House officials said Congress and the United Nations must act quickly to show resolve against Saddam Hussein.

In the mind of GW JR. and His Administraton, The War On Iraq simply consisted of ousting Hussein. Now it has turned to a U.S. effort to bring Democracy to Iraq and they simply aren't ready for free elections. It appears to me that Iraq has turned into a fight for the next middle east ruler which will generate another Dictator. They are savages, and are killing our American soldiers! It wasn't as easy as GW JR predicted it to be!

The War On Terror is much broader, Including those terrorist already in the U.S., we also must have intelligence on the 60 other Country's that harbor terrorist. Or should we attack all 60? I say we start with these in our own back yard first. GW JR combined the two wars and seems to have forgot about one! "The War On Terrorism" GW JR would like the American people to believe the War on Iraq is in fact the same as the War On Terrorism, but it's not! If most Americans feel we are safer today than we were on September 11, then they are gravely mistaken. The Terrorist are still here. Please don't be misquided.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 22, 2004 03:50 AM

d. jones

I see that you are still up to your old misinformation tricks.

First of all, Iraq was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel $25,000 for each bombing. He was harboring Abu Nidal, Zarqawi and the Al Ansar terrorist group. If you don't get it, then get out of the way so those who do can get the job done. Based on how you think, you would whimp out and come home.

You should read the speeches given by Bush before we went into Iraq, maybe you would learn the truth. All speeches are located at http://www.whitehouse.gov

GET INFORMED!!

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 22, 2004 06:56 PM

Quote posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 12, 2004 07:35 PM

"The people who want to kill us because we are American- they want to kill us largely because we invaded their country and wont leave. Who captained that invasion? GW jr. Clinton made friends- Bush made enemies."

I offer the above example as to the ways liberals will lie, distort, mislead, and spew untruths in thier quest for power.

LIE #1:
"The people who want to kill us because we are American- they want to kill us largely because we invaded their country and wont leave."

FACT:
We didnt't invade "their" country until after "they" had killed 3000+ americans on 9-11-2001.

Apparently some have forgotten that date, those who perished on that date, and the survivors. It's sad.It's even sadder that liberals would want to compromise that day by distorting the facts and trying to mislead other Americans with their untruthful assertions.

LIE #2:
"Clinton made friends"

FACT:
So the perps of the first WTC bombing and the bombing of the USS Cole were a gift from Clinton's friends? And Clinton's bombing of Iraq was a friendly gesture to Saddam? Friends?

The president's job is NOT to make "friends" especially with the enemy. His job is ultimately the safety and security of the country.

LIE #3:
"Bush made enemies."

FACT:
Bush led the largest "COALITON" (100+ nations)in the invasion of Iraq. 100+ nations standing united with the United States Of America to bring down a dictator who in the past murdered his own country men with weapons of mass destruction as well as those of his neighbors. 100+ nations as friends standing behind President Bush.

Posted by: Jerpalisa at August 22, 2004 10:10 PM

Kerry For War in Iraq

2002: Kerry Said Iraq’s WMDs May Be Given Or Sold To Terrorist Groups. "I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (CBS’ "Face The Nation," 9/15/02)

2002: Two Days After Voting For Use Of Force Resolution Against Iraq, Kerry Said There Was No Justification For Initiating War With Iraq. Kerry stated, "If the president of the United States decides to go unilaterally, I think it would be one of the great catastrophes and mistakes of our time ... There is no justification whatsoever for sending Americans, for the first time in American history, to war as the belligerent, as the initiator of it ... without showing an imminent threat to our country." (C. T. Revere, "Sen. Kerry: War Resolution Not Absolute," Tucson Citizen, 10/14/02)

I give you America's greatest flip flopper

Posted by: Wayne at August 23, 2004 03:38 PM

Osama Ben Lauden killed over 3000 Americans.
When are we going to get him?
To me thats the real Bush war record.
There are a lot of Americans waiting for Justice.
When are they going to get it?

Posted by: tom klumb at August 24, 2004 09:48 AM

d. jones, the department of labor website is where you'll find the information on the new overtime rules...

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fairpay/main.htm

I hope you enjoy ;-)

"Under the new FairPay rules, workers earning less than $23,660 per year — or $455 per week — are guaranteed overtime protection. This will strengthen overtime rights for 6.7 million American workers, including 1.3 million low-wage workers who were denied overtime under the old rules."

"... Exemptions do not apply to manual laborers or other “blue-collar” workers who perform work involving repetitive operations with their hands, physical skill and energy. Such nonexempt “blue-collar” employees gain the skills and knowledge required for performance of their routine manual and physical work through apprenticeships and on-the-job training.

FLSA-covered, non-management employees in production, maintenance, construction and similar occupations such as carpenters, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, iron workers, craftsmen, operating engineers, longshoremen, construction workers and laborers are entitled to minimum wage and overtime premium pay under the FLSA, and are not exempt under Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA nor the regulations at 29 CFR Part 541, no matter how highly paid they might be."

Posted by: justin anderson at August 24, 2004 10:31 AM

The problem with our economy is not caused by recent Tax cuts, it is caused by the giveaway attitude of many liberal left Democrats who hope for get elected again with the equivalent of giveaway programs.
You want to do something worth while support Israel & move our Embassy Offices to Jersualem

Posted by: Jerry O'Briant at August 24, 2004 05:28 PM

Some Voters Can Be Two Places At Once?
An investigation by the New York Daily News has found that 46,000 New Yorkers are simultaneously registered to vote in New York and Florida, a violation of both states' laws. The Daily News says 68 percent of the dual registrants are Democrats, only 12 percent are Republicans.

And as many as 1,000 have voted twice in at least one election, a federal offense. President Bush, you may recall, officially won Florida in 2000 by 537 votes.

A First Time for Everything
Speaking of New York voting, former New York City Mayor Edward Koch (search), a lifelong Democrat, says he will, for the first time in his life, vote for a Republican presidential candidate this time around, insisting, "the Democratic Party just doesn't have the stomach to go after terrorists."

Koch, in an interview with World Net Daily, says, "While I don't agree with Bush on a single domestic issue, they are all trumped by the issue of terrorism, where he has ... proven his ability to fight this war. ... Kerry [has been] surrounded by radical politicians like [former president Jimmy] Carter and [Senator Ted] Kennedy. ... I know Kerry will succumb to their pressure if elected."

Posted by: Navy Vet at August 25, 2004 12:11 PM

There was evidence that Iraq was actively persuing the development of nuclear weapons. The hundreds of documents prior to the war, point to that and cite examples of evidence of the attempt to develope a nuclear program.

When the war in Iraq began, the sites where these programs were going on were found to be looted. That some of these looters fled to Iran for sactuary should be evidenced to us today with the development of Iran's sudden growth of nuclear programs. Of course, so many do not won't want to connect those dots.

It would have been irresponsible not to act upon this, knowing that elements involved in the terrorist groups were supported and backed by tribal governments in Iraq and Iran. After declaring war on the United States and then engaging in an attack against US, it would have been irresponsible for us not to respond and prevent further development or deployment.

David Kay, who is the poster child of the Democratic Party of pointing a finger of blame to the Bush Administration as proof of no WMD's, are willing to ignore that a great deal of the information about the WMD's came from claims by Kay who was know singing a different tune.

We seem to be so quik to forget history. There were weapons of mass destruction like mustard and sarin gas which were used on their own people, the debate of nuclear weapons was not that he had them but that he was attaempting to secure them and he needed to be stopped before he aquired and developed them.

Kay said they did not have a LARGE stockpile, that doesn't mean they didn't have any and does mean that they were stockpiling. If any of these had been used in the United States, what would the Dems be saying today. If we had not acted and allowed the regime in Iraq to continue violating UN resolations, moving materials from one base to another, or refusing, as they had, for several years to refuse allowing inspections at all.

If any American thought that removing Saddam from power was going to be easy or to allow Iraq to move from a repressive regime to a democratic society was going to be easy with so many radicals in that country, they would have been foolish. We all agreed then, but some agreed without realizing the consequences that were clearly laid out when we were told this would be a long process.

The liberals have returned to the strategy of Vietnam by implying war crimes against America, pointing at the Presidential Administration and calling the President himself to be a war criminal for invading Iraq. As we know, allegations made during the Vietnam war of crimes by American soldiers were highly exagerated, just as the prison scandal in Abu Gharib were. There attempts to connect the scandal to the White House became apparent from the likes of Ted Kennedy, who cited, without any fact or basis of truth the connections between the White House and the soldiers. Present investigations have pointed this out, in spite of the news medias and John Kerry's attempts to twist those statements and point fingers at Rumsfeld and Bush.

These attacks by the media, who are themselves pushing and anti-Bush agenda becomes transparent to those willing to see them, but continue to be used as concrete eveidence based on suggestive implication. By their view only Republicans can be tainted and biased and therefore every one is now being attacked because of their Republican affiliation. No such comments are levelled at Kerry supporters however. Honesty, which the democrats cry for, is not what they are interested in. This is an election that allows free reign and criticism by Kerry's camp and only attacks ads against Kerry. It has become an election that is being reported from one side, the Kerry side, and that is placing out country at risk. Americans are basing opinions, not on facts but on political diatribe from reporters in the news media with a Democratic Agenda who only attack Republicans and embrace anything the Democrats say as Gospel.

Hollywood is out in full force, the documentaries, the slanted ads, the personal attacks against the president in unprecidented in the history of mud-slinging in politics and these attacks have been going on for 4 years. Now, when one ad, attacking Kerry comes out, the news media is in an uproar and showing their bias.

They are the ones putting us at risk. They need to be held accountable.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 25, 2004 03:34 PM

I know this does not belong here but it kind of made me sick. This is a quote form John Scarry, about Donald Rumsfield.

"By failing to plan to win the peace, by failing to make sure our troops received the proper training, equipment, reinforcement and command guidance, and by failing to take corrective actions once all of this became apparent, Secretary Rumsfeld did not demonstrate the leadership required from a secretary of defense.

"That is why today I am calling on Secretary Rumsfeld to resign effective immediately."

Did or did he not vote against money for the troops in Iraq? Maybe he should resign from the race!!!

Posted by: David Lowery at August 25, 2004 05:17 PM

Tom Klum,
Have you ever thought that we might actually have OBL or killed him? He is one man in a world of Billions, it's not easy to be found if you don't want to be. Anyway, maybe we have killed OBL but they are not willing to tell the people because they know that the Dems will start crying and say "OK you got him, now we need to stop the war on Terrorism" That would be a big mistake, but that is exactly what the liberal left will say.

OBL was responsible for 3,000 people dieing on 9/11/01, If we have killed 20,000 of the terrorists it still would not be equal to what we lost. You have to step back and look at the whole picture, 254 Marines killed in Lebanan, 1996 WTS bombing 6 killed, 2000 USS Cole Bombing 34 Killed. (BTW I saw the pictures of the USS Cole the public did not see and it was sickning) The two embassy bombings hundreds killed, Bali night club bombing, scores of people killed, Kobar towers US service men killed. Madrid train bombings over a hundred people killed. Starting to get the picture? These were all done by Muslem Extremist. All these except for the Lebanon Marine Barracks can be traced back to OBL. Yes he is the head honcho, but there has been and there will always be terrorism so catching OBL will not stop this insanaty.

We were sucker punched on 9/11/01 and I for one am happy that this President is doing more than lobbing 4 or 5 cruise missles at an empty terrorist camp as retaliation.

As far as your justice, well that is up to each and every person to determine exactly what they are willing to accept as Justice. I for one would love to see OBL dead, but I don't look at it as the end of the world if we don't get him. He will die soon enough. I feel we have been exacting justice on a daily basis in Afghanastan and Iraq. If your whole idea of justice is getting OBL then you will be one of the liberal left crying for us to stop once he is captured or killed. You live in a rather small world if that is your only means of determining justice for 9/11/01.

Everyone's life changed that day, many lost loved ones and/or friends but killing one man won't bring closure.

You people don't know what success's we have had in Iraq and Afghanastan because the media is simply not interested in good news. How about the millions of women who can actually show their face in public without the fear of beatings. How about the millions of women who can go to school, get jobs, and feel somewhat free. Is that not important to you? I see the success, I talk to the Marines returning from the war on terrorism. They are proud of what they are doing and are willing to return and continue the jobs they started out doing. They are a different breed of American, ones with compassion and the belief in a strong free America. I love doing the work I do because it keeps me in constant contact with these loyal heros. I would have a hard time in the big city with people who don't know what sacrafice these men are willing to make to allow you to be free.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 25, 2004 07:15 PM

James you obviously have me confused with someone

Devil Dawg,
So you are saying that you have to go to vietnam and not be a draft dodger to be elected? Hell Clinton got elected twice and didn't even serve in the national guard. Gore served in the national guard (like President Bush), but there was nothing wrong with his not serving in vietnam when he and Slick Willy ran huh? Glad the Democrats are staying on one side of the story other wise we might get confused.
else.

I don't recall ever saying anything remotely close to that. I have stated that Clinton was a draft dodger and went to Russia for 2 weeks to protest the Vietnam war, during which time he burned an American flag. Yet he still gets elected, so why is it the Dems are so concerned with President Bush joining the National Guard. When Bob Dole ran for President the DNC chairman stated that Clinton dodging the draft has no bearing on being President, yet now they are claiming President Bush avioded Vietnam by joining the NG and therefore is not worthy of being President. Seems to me that's a double standard.

Hmm let me see, a draft dodger is good but a NG pilot is bad. Nope still doesn't sit well with me.

Abel, Abel, Abel, you are so misinformed. How old are you? Are you old enough to remember President Jimmy Carter? His Administration started the elimination of the time and a half. His adminstration as typical of democrats put a cap on Government workers who earned overtime. In other words if you make less than (this is not the exact number, but you can see where I am going) $25.00 an hour you were eligible for time and a half as long as it did not go over the $25.00 an hour. So if you made $23.00 an hour you would only be paid $25.00 an hour for your overtime work. If you made $30.00 an hour you got paid at your regular hourly rate, no OT. Let's talk Holliday pay. That is a horse of a different color. I am a Govt. employee and I worked a holliday knowing I would not get OT just straight time. Well I thought I would get the pay for the Holliday and paid for the 8 hour I worked. Not only was I wrong, there was actually a cap on how much you can make an hour on a Holliday and that was less than the OT rate. So basicly I did not get paid for the the Holliday, but I did get paid for the hours I worked which was over a dollar an hour under my hourly wages. That dear Abel was done under Carters administration. What President Bush signed into law as been around since the 1970's and President Bush is the only President, Regan included who was willing to finish what Carter started. So am I concerned that a hundred thousand people don't get OT? Not in the least bit. I haven't seen OT in over 20 years and I am doing well.

I feel that Unions are a good thing to a point. Unions help it members, but it's at the cost of the economy. They are getting people wages that are way higher than the skills for the job are worth. Ask youself why import cars are doing so well in this American market. It's because Unions are driving up the cost of American cars. Labor Unions can be a good thing in helping with health care and retirement benifits, but what good is getting a guy who puts lugnuts on a car $20.00 an hour if the company has to close the plant down due high costs and slow sales.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 26, 2004 10:06 AM

Posted by: Jerpalisa at August 22, 2004 10:10 PM

FACT:
Bush led the largest "COALITON" (100+ nations)in the invasion of Iraq. 100+ nations standing united with the United States Of America to bring down a dictator who in the past murdered his own country men with weapons of mass destruction as well as those of his neighbors. 100+ nations as friends standing behind President Bush.

What 100 countries? I think we have about a dozen in this so called coalition of Bush's riight now and they all have the population of Road Island.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 26, 2004 10:34 AM

I have a question Posted by: Jerpalisa at August 22, 2004 10:10 PM about my so called Quote posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 12, 2004 07:35 PM
that goes as follows:

"The people who want to kill us because we are American- they want to kill us largely because we invaded their country and wont leave. Who captained that invasion? GW jr. Clinton made friends- Bush made enemies."

That was not my quote! But I guess like every other co called conservative Republican I guess it is okay to miss quote and use things that were never said.

This was miy quote on Aug 12th at that time.

THE TIDE IS TURNING! OHIO AND FLORIDA NOW GOING DEMOCRATIC! NEVADA AND ARIZONA FOLLOWING IN A DEAD HEAT! THE WAY OHIO GOES SO DOES THE NATION!

Polls show Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, with a 6% lead in Ohio, a state that usually votes with the winner. Bush has been here 20 times since taking office, and Kerry has visited 12 times just this year.

Democratic Sen. John Kerry has taken a slight lead over President Bush in Florida, the essential swing state in the 2000 electioN. Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, had the backing of 47 percent in the poll by Quinnipiac University of Hamden, Conn. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had the support of 41%. The poll of 1,094 registered voters, which was conducted Aug. 5-10, reported a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

KEEP RUNNING THE NEGATIVE ADDS RNC!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 26, 2004 10:44 AM

For all of you who think the whole world hates us. When the entire world became France and Germany I don't know. Personally, I think they are ingrates and could care less about either of them.

As far as troop numbers go, here is the list as of May:

US 130,000
UK 9,000
Italy 3,000
Poland 2,400
Ukraine 1,600
Spain 1,300* - ran like cowards
Netherlands 1,100
Australia 800
Romania 700
Bulgaria 480
Thailand 440
Denmark 420
Honduras 368*
El Salvador 361
Dominican Republic 302
Hungary 300
Japan 240
Norway 179 4.0 5.8
Mongolia 160
Azerbaijan 150
Portugal 128
Latvia 120
Lithuania 118
Slovakia 102
Czech Republic 80
Philippines 80
Albania 70
Georgia 70
New Zealand 61
Moldova 50
Macedonia 37
Estonia 31
Canada 31
Kazakhstan 25

We should thank these countries for their willingness to join the war on terror!!

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 26, 2004 10:41 PM

Devil Dawg,
With a good union contract, time and a half wages are all spelled out. For example, if you get $12 per hour for the first 40 hours you would begin getting $12 plus $6 for the hours you work beyond 40 hours or $18 per hour beyond 40 hours. To my knowledge, this hasn't changed at all and there is no confusion unless the union contract isn't very clear or well written, which I suppose, is possible. If there was a question regarding my wages, I would immediately file a Grievance.

You are also correct in saying that unions are a lot of help to many individual union members but I got so much more from my union because of what I learned. I was elected as an union officer and, as such, had to travel a lot and so I learned from my travel and participation experiences. We worked on so many different projects that learning became a way of life and I really appreciate having lived that kind of life.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at August 27, 2004 02:44 PM

All you ever need to know about Kerry is his voting record... Vietnam makes NO DIFFERENCE, as many of this nations greatest leaders never served even 1 day in the miltary. Kerry chooses not to talk about his record... and if you really look at his record you'll know why. Even John Kerry doesn't know what John Kerry believes. He does believe he wants to be president and will say anything to get there... The facts are all there - read them for yourself then you make the decision if Kerry should be president... or if he will be the worst mistake this country could make at a crucial time in our history...

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103

For me the choice is simple BUSH 2004

Also, if you want real news instead of the "Liberal Media for Kerry" visit http://www.mrg.org (The Media Researh Center) or http://www.cnsnews.com

GO BUSH

Posted by: Bob in NH at August 28, 2004 01:59 PM

Garbage! Garbage GARBAGE!!! Under Clinton our National Security STUNK and our Military was weakened! Clinton never would do anything about all the terrosists attacks that went on while he was in office. Kerry will be worse if you look at his sorry Senate record! Terrorists want Kerry in office. They hate Bush. More reason to vote for Bush!

Bush/Cheney 2004!

Posted by: Luke at August 28, 2004 03:03 PM

TO ALL WHO HAVE WRITTEN TO ME,
HOW TO DECIDE REGARDING THIS COMING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? All you need to know is about what Bush has done during his three years as President...mostly nothing to speak of. REFUSING TO GO TO VIETNAM AND FIGHT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE--many of our nations greatest leaders never served even one day in the miltary or in battle. George W. Bush chooses not to talk about his record...He keeps telling us only negatives about John Kerry and Kerry's deficiencies but if you really study his own record you'll know why--he doesn't want you to learn about his failed leadership as President. The truth is that George W. Bush has lost track of the many miscalculations, mistakes and errors that he has made during his Presidency. The only thing he know is that he wants to continue to be our President and he will lie, cheat and say anything to continue in office... The facts of his tenure are there for all to study and see with an open mind and heart -- study them for yourself and then make up your own mind -- you'll see that for George W. Bush to continues as president would be the greatest mistake this country has ever made in its history. Bush's first term cannot be blamed on Americans because the US Supreme Court selected him but another term in office would really be our mistake and, BELIEVE IT, we cannot afford to make that kind of a mistake during a crucial time in our history...

The choice is clear, vote for JOHN KERRY/JOHN EDWARDS on November 2, 2004 and you won't be sorry. Think of your children and your grandchildren--DO IT FOR THEM AS WELL AS FOR OUR COUNTRY!

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at August 28, 2004 07:23 PM

Abel,

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at August 28, 2004 07:23 PM

Don't let the GW JR supporters run you away. I like to read your posts. I think they are very intelligent and informative. Not dumb like those of the GW JR camp! The GW JR. Supporters are living on a fear factor. Not all Democrats are poor and most have nothing to fear of. John Kerry, is a perfect example, Ted Kennedy is another great example. Both are from very rich families. That is what GW JR. Hates. He is raised in a family that thinks money can buy anything! I know that because I am from TEXAS, and am not poor! GW JR. Didn't get to send me and my family to the poor house! GW JR is so dumb that he is putting our own Country at risk for his personal agenda of being President! If its a fight for America that he wants, so let it be! THIS IS OUR COUNTRY NOT CRAWFORD, TEXAS. SO GW JR. GO HOME!

Posted by: d. jones at August 29, 2004 01:43 AM

Able,
Are you saying Kerry never made a mistake or miscalculation? I argue he did, just never admitted to it. He may have changed his story to accomidate people.

How much tax money has Kerry given back to America?

How many major weapons systems that we use today has Kerry voted for and how many against?

How did Kerry's votes help win the cold war?

Your right about Vietnam, 4 months or not serving really makes little difference today.

After Sept. 11th things have changed.

"Think of your children and your grandchildren--DO IT FOR THEM AS WELL AS FOR OUR COUNTRY!"

This statemnt by Able is so true. Vote with your hearts and heads. Don't listen to everyone's absurd aqusations. Find out the facts for yourself and vote for someone you believe in. Don't vote for someone because he's not someone else.

Posted by: Wayne at August 29, 2004 12:25 PM

d. jones

You consider Abel's posts inteligent and informative because they agree with your agenda.

So far you have failed to answer the questions posed by several people on this forum. Why aren't you answering? We are not afraid - it is those who think like you who are afraid. Conservatives have not changed their minds since 9/11, but the liberals have and they do not have the fortitude to defeat terrorism.

How will Kerry make you safer?

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 29, 2004 06:37 PM

PS Able and d.jones,
You guys are hilarious, but lets get back on topic here. Next time you post try posting a fact from Kerry's senate voting record.

I said Kerry's senate voting record. Let's see how smart you two are.

Posted by: Wayne at August 29, 2004 07:07 PM

Kerry would make America more "European like"...worse yet, "France like". If Americans would study European history and its result (modern Europe) we would quickly learn that Kerry is not our guy.

Posted by: Proud American at August 30, 2004 10:17 AM

Posted by: Wayne at August 29, 2004 07:07 PM

Wayne, I would rather be funny than stupid! As are many of your posts! :-) GET A REAL JOB!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 31, 2004 12:53 AM

http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=8&aid=D84PUKI00_story

Bush Suggests War on Terror Cannot Be Won!

WHAT A DUMMY! I REPEAT! THERE IS NO WAR ON TERRORISM!

NASHUA, N.H. - President Bush ignited a Democratic inferno of criticism on Monday by suggesting the war on terrorism could not be won, forcing his aides to scramble to defend his remarks just as he had hoped to bask in convention accolades.

VOTE: KERRY/EDWARDS 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 31, 2004 01:22 AM

Bush Now Saying 'We Will Win' Terror War

OK, GW JR. Supporters Now whose flip flopping?

August 31, 2004 10:33 AM EDT

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - President Bush said Tuesday "we will win" the war on terror, seeking to quell controversy and Democratic criticism over his earlier remark that victory may not be possible

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 31, 2004 12:08 PM

.d,
You sure are hostile. Why? Please explain what you mean there is no war on terrorism. I, and others on this site are trying to understand what you mean. Even John Kerry said: "The War on Terror is not a clash of civilizations. It is a clash of civilization against chaos; of the best hopes of humanity against dogmatic fears of progress and the future." http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html

Go to his website, there's 'War on Terror' statements all over it. I know, I spend more time there than on Bush's site. He put it pretty succinctly I might add.

Posted by: Navy Vet at August 31, 2004 02:38 PM

.d
Ok,now you're parsing. Kerry and Edwards have mis-spoken, Clinton mis-spoke. And plenty of times. And they will all do it again as we will also. It's going to happen. Have you never mis-spoken?

Posted by: Navy Vet at August 31, 2004 02:50 PM

NavyVet,
Let me first start by saying thank you for your service, for all our fine tropps both men and women, THANK YOU!!

Next, I don't even know why you bother with the head stooge, Moe(d.jones). He can't stay on topic cause he has no ground to stand on.

I have asked repeatedly for examples of what Kerry has done for the middle class, national security, and healthcare, but so far not one liberal had showed any facts.

Bush has implemented many things on these topics, but don't believe me, look up the facts for yourselves. Try factcheck.com.

At least the insane here are entertaining.

Keep upi the good fight and God bless the USA.

Posted by: Wayne at August 31, 2004 04:23 PM

Wayne,
Thank YOU, but there is no need to thank me. I did it because it's what I wanted to do, and as corny as it sounds, I love this country and that's why I served. Love your posts. My reason for following is the entertainment. I've followed .d from post to post and only interject when he/she gets abusive. Nothing personal mind you, but he/she is entertaining. I also am partial to Abel too. They are both spirited and I admire the way they won't give up. They are true soldiers for the left and even though I completely disagree, I admire anybody that keeps up the fight when they are over-powered, out-manned and out-gunned. And I do mean this in all sincerity!

Posted by: Navy Vet at August 31, 2004 07:16 PM

Navy Vet,
This is to tell you that I really think Senator John Kerry will be the next President of the United States and I only hope that you won't be too disappointed. I also hope that John Kerry will be able to bring all of us Americans together. I believe that George W. Bush has given up trying to do that--he's sort of "close minded," I guess and cannot help himself. Never-the-less, I don't believe it's in our nation's interest to stand all along in the world--I'm afraid we're quickly headed in that direction. It's bad enough that the "Terrorists" hate us and want to kill us but to have the rest of the civilized world against us too, is unbearable to me. Like John Kerry says, "We can do better and we will!" My warmest regards to you and your loved ones.

Your Condensed Post follows:

Wayne,
Thank YOU, but there is no need to thank me. I did it because it's what I wanted to do, and as corny as it sounds, I love this country and that's why I served. Love your posts. My reason for following is the entertainment. I've followed .d from post to post and only interject when he/she gets abusive. Nothing personal mind you, but he/she is entertaining. I also am partial to Abel too. They are both spirited and I admire the way they won't give up. They are true soldiers for the left and even though I completely disagree, I admire anybody that keeps up the fight when they are over-powered, out-manned and out-gunned. And I do mean this in all sincerity!
Posted by: Navy Vet at August 31, 2004 07:16 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 1, 2004 03:03 AM

GW JR really put his foot in his mouth this time. I wonder how he really feels with so many people unhappy with his term. As I have stated to many, probably the same as he felt when entering the White House after a Cheated Election. He simply doesn't care.

Police also announced the arrest of a 21-year-old Yale student after he entered a restricted area near Vice President Dick Cheney's booth at the convention Monday night, coming within 10 feet of him and shouting anti-war and anti-Bush statements. Cheney was never in any danger, and no weapon was found on the man, authorities said.

The suspect, Thomas Frampton, was charged with assaulting federal officers and impeding the operation of the Secret Service

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004 For Peace

Posted by: d. jones at September 1, 2004 09:09 AM

Just wondering if anyone has noticed that, with the change in the political arena in Iraq and the support of the American troops that the terrorists in Iraq are losing their support. After the Standoff in Al-Sadyr the militants were forced by their own people to lay down their guns and seek peaceful resolution, those who have taken prisoners have been told by Muslim leaders to release those prisoners. The support for terrorism is falling and the willingness to go forward into a democratic society appears to be bearing fruit. Instead of recruiting more terrorists, which is the attack of the Democratic Party, things for now seem to be turning around and the terrorists are being forced to surrender and enter into the peaceful negotions for a better future in Iraq.

Soldier after soldier has reported that conditions are imporiving and that over 75 percent of the people in Iraq are thankful for the US intervention. Occasionally one complains and he or she gets all the press, sort of like when John Kerry returned home from Vietnam. It's almost as though the press wants us to lose just so they have a story to report and can continue to portray American as the villian of the world instead of seeing the nobility in ending a 30 year cycle of political terror in a land dominated by a regime who had no respect for it's people, tortured them and murdered them with non-convention weapons. Where are the news stories about the schools re-opening allowing women to receive an education? Where are the stories about the hospitals that have been rebuilt and the equipment supplied to those hospitals to provide the people with essentials necessary to a secure country? Where are the stories of the heroism of the young men and women who risked their own lives in an attempt to save children caught in the middle of the cross-fire? That's the story of the day to day war against terror in Iraq, but it's not the one on the nightly news.

3 Years ago, Iraq was a major player in the support of Global Terrorism, now they are standing up to the militant terrorists and they are refusing to allow them to build their sanctuaries and are moving to a more frees society where the whole world benefits and then we have the audacity to challenge the worth of bringing peace to a country torn by a terrorist regime and a militant faction that disgraces the name and value of the Muslim religion.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 1, 2004 11:54 AM

All I can say is the Dems are desperate, they have to twist the Presidents words, while the swiftvets are using Kerry's own words. The polls are showing that Kerry/Edwards will not win, that is why the Dems are trying every dirty trick to make the President look bad. I got news for you d. and Able, it ain’t gonna work. Sorry I haven't posted in a while, I've been sick with a cold. (I suppose you dems want to blame Bush for that too?)

Posted by: David Lowery at September 1, 2004 12:32 PM

"Apart from a terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction, few foreign policy threats are as disturbing as the possibility that rogue regimes in Iran and North Korea could soon both have nuclear weapons. Whether President Bush or John Kerry is elected president, the new administration will find dealing with these countries one of its most difficult challenges. The difference is that the Bush administration has labored -- thus far unsuccessfully -- to come to grips with these problems for several years. Mr. Kerry has done little beyond offering empty slogans. His criticism of Mr. Bush for supporting deployment of missile defenses to protect the country against ballistic missile attack will doubtless bolster hopes in Tehran and Pyongyang that they can deter the United States from applying force against them if Mr. Kerry is elected. ...Mr. Kerry...has been irresponsible in the extreme. He touts the failed EU diplomatic initiative as a superior alternative to Mr. Bush's approach to Iran. One of Mr. Kerry's top foreign policy spokesmen, Rand Beers, blames Mr. Bush for blocking talks with Iran. Mr. Kerry told The Washington Post that Mr. Bush made a serious mistake in not talking directly with Pyongyang, and offered the Clinton administration's approach -- highlighted by the 1994 agreement to provide the regime with energy and financial assistance in return for a promise to halt its nuclear weapons programs (which North Korea violated from the start) -- as a model he would attempt to follow. Mr. Kerry wants to take us back to the good old days when the Clinton gang knew North Korea was cheating, but pretended otherwise to continue a dialogue that gave Pyongyang cover to build more nukes. That's foolishness, not leadership." --The Washington Times

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 1, 2004 01:24 PM

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 1, 2004 01:24 PM

Jim, those posts are to ridiculous to even answer, agree and even comment on.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 1, 2004 08:26 PM

Kerry ticked off a list of what he sees as Bush's missteps and mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan - and included a reminder that the terrorist leader implicated in the Sept. 11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, remains at large.

"I would have sent the best trained forces in the world to get the No. 1 criminal in the world," he said.

Kerry also said he would have given inspectors more time to search for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in Iraq, listened to the advice of senior military and diplomatic advisers, sent American troops to battle with better equipment and asked more foreign nations to shoulder the military and financial burden.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 2, 2004 01:26 AM

Well, This is Horrible News!

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell said the United States wants U.N. sanctions imposed on Iran after the Bush administration concluded the country is on the verge of enriching enough uranium for four nuclear weapons.

The new alarms were raised after the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency circulated a classified report among member governments about Iran's nuclear program.

Wayne if they are on the "list" We better take them out fast.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 2, 2004 01:38 AM

D. Jones,

Somehow I expected you to say something like that. My second post was taken directly out of the Washington Times and isn't my quote just something I thought was relevant to the discussion concerning national security in this blod.

The first is my opinion/observations of some things that I see. I've watched the news and I've seen the military making those occasional comments of Iraqi support amoung the citizens but it dopesn't get picked up in the media and I think it's a shame that the media only wants to present one side of the war. Sorry you disagree or feel that it's trivial, Your entitled. I think it's important. You, of course, have to make it personal.

You can dismiss the comments but there is something happening in Iraq that's positive, while the face of terrorism continues to rear it's ugly head, not attacking countries that didn't the support the actions of America. The French Journalists and the militant Islamics in Russia. The positive side of this is that a force that was violently opposed to America is now sitting down to the table to discuss the negotiations for the peaceful resolution of the war. I know that doesn't fit into your scheme of things and your hate Bush agenda, but after a few short years it's looks better than it did 4 years ago. I think that several things are responsible for this. The strength and resolve of a president who was willing to stand up to terrorism and say, no more. The exemplary fortitude of a military force that showed it's strength and it's compassion in dealing with the Iraqi people. The foritude and courage of a people in Iraq who respect their religious beliefs and values and are finally willing to stand up against the militants who disgrace that faith. Finally, the fear of the resolve of Iran to develop a Nuclear weapon and the understanding that it will take the strength of the United States to secure their land since they already know they can't depend on the United Nations to intervene.

By the way, I commend the demonstrators, most of
them, for their orderly and peaceful demonstrations. I also commend the police of New York City as they have kept their cool in spite of the continual verbal assaults and altercations that are taking place with a few who have little to no regard for the law. It will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow as tension mount with 70 policemen already injured because of a handful of people who think that violence is form of debate.

I also want to thank people like D. Jones and Abel for their continued support of President Bush by demonstrating how ridiculous their statements are to reasonable people and their continual demonstration that no matter what facts are presented, no matter what evidence is produced, they hate Bush even though they say they don't. Their continual attempts to bate and ridicule anyone who disagrees with them continues to show others that the party of the Democrats is not open for honest debate, interested in expressions of free speech or willing to work together for a more positive future. I guess Zel Miller was right tonight when he said the Democratic Party has become the so interested in partisan concerns that they are stonewalling this country and that the Daschele Democrats are creating a hostile enviroment that isn't good for the core of this country. He produced Kerry's voting record, he told America what it said in his support of our troops and all the Democrats could say afterwards was nothing except personal attacks on Senator Miller or to spin things away from the facts.

I will vote for the person who has shown his integrity, his support of the troops, a clear and optomistic vision for America and a positive plan in spite of the attempts by the democrats to turn so many of the good things in this country into bad things.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 2, 2004 03:48 AM

Jim,
They are only ridiculous because he can't hink for himself, noone has told him a response to what you said. Give him a day or two and he'll come back with something like he's rubber and your glue.

Hey Moe(d.jones),
I think you took too many meds this morning. You can't even think straight.

3 Years ago, Iraq was a major player in the support of Global Terrorism, now they are standing up to the militant terrorists and they are refusing to allow them to build their sanctuaries and are moving to a more frees society where the whole world benefits and then we have the audacity to challenge the worth of bringing peace to a country torn by a terrorist regime and a militant faction that disgraces the name and value of the Muslim religion.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 1, 2004 11:54 AM

Sounds pretty intelligent to me, but hey what do I know, i'm brainwashed by freedom and liberty.

Posted by: Wayne at September 2, 2004 08:16 AM

Yes, Kerry told the American Legion how he would have fought a better war on terror in Iraq. He would have given the inspectors more time. Weapons inspections began in 1991. After 12 years of continual refusal to allow the UN to do their job, Kerry says he would have given them more time.

John Kerry said he would have listened to more senior military and diplomatic advisors. In other words he would have done exactly what President Bush did, listening to senior advisors who had acumulated a wealth in information from Russia, England, France, Germany and IRaq itself that they were developing weapons of mass destruction, had used those weapons against their own people and were offering financial support of terrorist acticity in the world. Based upon that information, John Kerry agreed, even without cooalition support, America must move forward and take Suddam out of the picture of Global terrorism. At least that's what he said back then, based on the intelligence information we had back then. Now as he assumes the role on Monday morning quaterback he sings a new song.

John Kerry said that he would have made sure the troops had the equipment they needed. I'll differ to Senator Zel Miller at the Repulican Convention last night, and remind everyone what they already know. I voted for it before I voted against it. I guess now he'll have to change that to I voted for it before I voted against but now I would have voted for it.

And he would have asked more foreign nations to shoulder the financial and military support. We did ask, we didn't only ask, we sought emphatically, through the UN and NATO to bring more people to the table and a few nations refused and the UN rejected. Again, John Kerry told the American people that we had to go into Iraq even if it meant unilaterally. George Bush agreed. But that was Senator Kerry before the popularity of Howard Dean. That was Senator Kerry when he was for the war in Iraq before he was against now that he is for it.

Now you can listen to John Kerry and you can believe what he says now. You can listen to John Kerry and believe what he said 2002 or you can listen to John Kerry and belive what he said in 2003 or listen to John Kerry and believe what he said in 2004, three very different positions on a war that is bringing freedom, not only to Iraq, but to the world by tightening the borders on terrorist sanctuaries. I prefer to listen to a president who says what he says and then sticks to it, in spite of what the polls and the turning tides of public opinion tells him.

If we would have listned to the polls we never would have gone to Europe in World War II and the blacks would still slaves. A large number of Americans were wrong back then and a large number, I believe, of Americans are wrong now.

I challenge any of the Kerry supporters to come up with a single thing on the Iraq war where John Kerry has been consistent except for the fact that he has voted against supporting our troops more times than any other Senator in the last 20 years.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 2, 2004 02:48 PM

d.jones,
You finally are making some sense. We should do something to Iran, unfrotualtely the liberals in this country won't let us. This means you.

Posted by: Wayne at September 2, 2004 04:38 PM

Lets talk about haliburton!

Trickey Dicky Chenney is being investigated for having a financial interest still in the company even after stating on record he no longer had any financial interest in Haliburton. Fact: He has thousands of exersiable stock options that are exersiable in 2007 and is with in the limitatins of a second term if he is re-elected with Bush and it is now also proven that he has recieved over 2 million in compensation from haliburton since he has taken office.

Did he lie?

This is way more serious that Oral sex scandal! How come noboody in the Neo Coservative Party or Congress has appointed a special prosecutor yet! HMMMMMMMMMM? Millions of Tax dollars are being given to this comapny through no bid contracts!

Is hallagate comming soon to a Fox station near you? Don't count on it they are to far and balanced when it comes to Bush.Chenney! watch on CNN and MSNBC! This could be interesting.

I jus wonder if Bill O'Riely has the balls to report this one and prove he can stand straight up and not lean right so far!

Tune in at the same bat time same bat place for new comming details.

A new ad will be launched Friday exposing Tricky Dicky and Hallagate! Stay Tuned Yall!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at September 2, 2004 05:09 PM

Posted by: Wayne at September 2, 2004 08:16 AM

"Sounds pretty intelligent to me, but hey what do I know, i'm brainwashed by freedom and liberty."

Wayne,

Sounds like your pretty brainless to me! Iraq is not the only Country that harbors Terrorist what about the other 60 Country's. Even more than that, What about the ones still here in the U.S.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 2, 2004 07:55 PM

How Can We Be Safer with George Bush as President?

I am still having trouble intellectually resolving why our nation has labored so hard to overthrow the Iraqi government while doing what could be legitimately perceived as far less to capture those who were responsible for 9/11.

Lost in the "spin" is the absence of weapons of mass destruction - the "clear and emanate danger." Although it maybe true that Saddam was a tyrant to his people, it doesn't make the case for war. Meanwhile, Al Quaida is continuing to terrorize the world. Without this clear and emanate threat there is no logical reason for diverting resources from pursuing Al Quaida exclusively.

The Bush administration has made the case for the innocence of the Iraqi administration that said that they had no weapons of mass destruction, which they maintained and complied with the ultimatum issued by our government. Without weapons of mass destruction we, the United States of America, become the worlds most powerful terrorists.

The Bush administration has developed the precedence for every nation on the planet to go to war without legitimate cause, to kill tens of thousands of innocent citizens, and to make the case for war based completely upon conjecture.

How can we reward this kind of error with four more years? Even if we forget about the economy, lose of jobs to countries overseas, national division, etc., there is nothing worthwhile that suggests that we should “re-appoint” this man to be president of this country. We still haven’t had restitution for the 20,000+ voters of Florida who where denied the their right to vote in 2000’s election blunder.

If we had a real attorney general there would probably be a Bush impeachment proceeding. What is going on in this country? Clinton is impeached for lying about a private affair but let’s re-elect Bush for undeservingly overthrowing a government, causing 60% unemployment in Iraq, killing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, thousands of American soldiers wounded and/or killed, failing to preserve longtime alliances with European and other allies, and the list goes on. What are Republicans thinking? Is their no one else within the party who is capable of being president?

Posted by: Rodney Sistrunk at September 2, 2004 08:05 PM

d.jones,
Terrorists understand power. We took apart the 4th largest army in the world in days. I don't know what the purpose was of starting in Iraq, and neither do you, but what would Kerry have done? NOTHING

Posted by: Wayne at September 2, 2004 08:06 PM

I suppose this will be my very last post on this website. I've presented several facts that can't be disputed, however some on this website will not allow the facts to be presented without trying to distort them. D Jones, you, like many others on this site, have my full respect. I'm under the conviction that if someone truly believes in what they're saying.. who am I to try to convince them otherwise? If you believe killing an unborn baby is not a crime, then please, don't let me change your mind. If you think that higher taxes on small businesses would fix all the 'problems', and significantly boost employment levels, then please don't change your mind. If you think that Kyoto is a good plan, which will keep prices down and goverment regulations to a minimum, by all means... continue to support it. If you truly believe that life in the late 1960's and early 70's is the main factor in determining who you vote for president, keep researching and providing proof that your man is the right one! In my honest opinion, John Kerry is truly a hero. I think that anyone who would voluntarily put themself in harms way to free an unknown people from demise, is truly a hero. His service to the people of Mass. is also something he should be proud of. This country is nearly evenly split on a liberal/conservative basis, and whether I agree with the things he has done, is doing, and will do.. he still has earned the respect of many people. I truly think that John Kerry believes in his decisions, and his flip-flops may be the result of a man who realized he made the wrong decision in the first place... As a republican, I'll never vote for a republican because he carries the title of my party, and I'll never deny a democrat my vote because he/she carries the name of the opposing party. I will honestly evaluate who the person is and which person fits my description of a strong leader. In this case, I have weighed the options, and George W. Bush is my man. D Jones, keep fighting for what you believe.. if you truly believe it, I commend you for your unwaivering stance. I do not, however, commend you for calling people 'dummys' and 'idiots' and so forth. You should take the high road, present your point, move on, and vote.

Thank you all. I've learned many things from this site.. including that some people are stubborn, some are easy to crush, and some will never truly beleive in the things they say....and to those of you who haven't found what truly convicts you, make a promise to yourself that you'll find something to believe in, and that you'll fight your brains out for what you find...

God bless... vote for someone, its your right... its your duty!

Posted by: Justin Anderson at September 2, 2004 08:38 PM

Posted by: Wayne at September 2, 2004 08:06 PM

I don't know what the purpose was of starting in Iraq, and neither do you,

Wayne,

You are showing the softer bigotry side of your personality with the comments about Abel and I, and I don't appreciate it.

You also can't tell me what I know and I don't know simply because its certain that you don't know!

Whether you believe me or not, GW JR attacked Iraq for personal reasons, now he may not let American know this until he is back in Texas and writes a book, but it will come out trust me! I don't know you well enough to tell you an outright lie. At that time you will say that nut case d. jones was right! I know how GW JR. thinks! You've only had to deal with him for 4 years. I've had 10 years experience with him in Government. I am simply not some liberal spitting insults against a Republican President. This Man is horrible!!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 3, 2004 04:30 AM

Posted by: Justin Anderson at September 2, 2004 08:38 PM

D Jones, you, like many others on this site, have my full respect.

Thank you all. I've learned many things from this site.. including that some people are stubborn

Justin

We must all have a belief or something to fight for in life. I wouldn't spend so much time on this site trying to convince others by any means necessary that GEORGE W. BUSH is very bad for this Country if I didn't truly believe it. I came in fully armed with my own personal experiences and a sh** load of websites to back my allegations and tried to present them whenever possible. It is overwhelming sometimes, and I would put in many late hours researching, but you know who was my largest supporter. GW JR. himself. He makes this so easy at times because he has screwed the Country up so badly, and left an endless trail of mistakes, poverty, hatred as well as plain incompetent leadership. You have no idea how happy I will be to see him go.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 3, 2004 04:41 AM

Wayne,

Sounds like your pretty brainless to me! Iraq is not the only Country that harbors Terrorist what about the other 60 Country's. Even more than that, What about the ones still here in the U.S.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 2, 2004 07:55 PM

This is why your name is d.jokes. You are by far the biggest joke here. How old are you?

Posted by: Wayne at September 3, 2004 08:35 AM

I'm a Vietnam veteran that didn't win any medals while I was there,anybody that's ever been in a combat zone knows that winning medals is not based on how brave you are or how smart you are but how lucky you are.I was luckier than some of the rest,especially the 58,000 that died there,I didn't get hurt there so I didn't win any medals.
I went there because my country ask me to and when it was over,I was proud of my service there,but then along came John Kerry and testified bofore the senate in 1971 and called me a war criminal and a baby killer and said I should be ashamed of my service there,and I've hated him for that ever sinse,but I'll still vote for John Kerry if he will give me a satisfactory answer to this question. When he was testifing in front of the senate in 1971 and made the statement" We can't fight communist all
over the world and we should have learned that by now".What did he mean by that? was we supposed to lay down and let communism take over!!That's exactly what would have happend if we had taken his advise.Thank god Ronald Reagen didn't believe him.John Kerry was 100% wrong then and when people take a good look at who John Kerry Is and what he has always stood for,
I believe he will make it in the Gennis Book of records as the man who lost the office of president by the greatest margin of anyone that ever run for the office."THANK GOD FOR THE SWIFTBOAT VETERANS" FOR SHOWING The American people who John Kerry realy is.

Posted by: Gwyn Wyatt at September 3, 2004 02:24 PM

d.jokes,
Where is your proof of Bush attacking Iraq for personal reasons? Do you still beleive the moon is made of cheese?

Where are all the websites you speak of? I can show you proof positive of Kerry's senate record.

How do you like the new unemployment numbers? 5.4% sounds pretty good. It has gone down this month. Take your head out of Able's a** and he can take his head out of Kerry's and look around you, Kerry is losing.

Posted by: Wayne at September 3, 2004 02:29 PM

d.,

You don't know how PRESIDENT BUSH thinks. I love that man for all he has done for this country. He has saved this country from terrorism, he brought TEXAS back from the brink after Ann Richards got done with it. The economy in TEXAS is better for him, there are more companies here because of his tax relief. That is not a bad thing d., with more companies here in TEXAS there is more employment. Please stop all the lies about this great man! The only PRESIDENT better then G.W. Bush is REAGAN!!!! You can't stand the fact that your guy Kerry is going to lose just like Ann did!!!!

David in TEXAS and proud of our PRESIDENT!!!!!!

Posted by: David Lowery at September 3, 2004 03:45 PM

Gwynn Wyatt, Thank you for your service and sacrifices.

Posted by: Wayne at September 3, 2004 08:46 PM

David,

This is from another Texan who disagrees with you and just wishes that what you are saying were true. What happened to the unemployment problem that we currently have in Texas? What happened to the lack of educational funds that our public schools and children need to get an education? I know, "No child left behind," sounds great but what happened to the funding that was supposed to come with the program? Why are our teachers getting paid so little in comparison to most of the other states? What happened to the funds that were supposed to go to the CHIPs program? Study the Texas situation in regards to Labor and working Texans and see how sadly behind we are in comparison to most of the other states in the union. You appear to be living in a dream world. Get Real!

Your condensed POST follows:

"You don't know how PRESIDENT BUSH thinks. I love that man for all he has done for this country. He has saved this country from terrorism, he brought TEXAS back from the brink after Ann Richards got done with it. The economy in TEXAS is better for him, there are more companies here because of his tax relief. That is not a bad thing d., with more companies here in TEXAS there is more employment. Please stop all the lies about this great man! The only PRESIDENT better then G.W. Bush is REAGAN!!!! You can't stand the fact that your guy Kerry is going to lose just like Ann did!!!!
David in TEXAS and proud of our PRESIDENT!!!!!!"
Posted by: David Lowery at September 3, 2004 03:45 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 4, 2004 10:56 AM

I read this entry and found it to be interesting. It read:

"For all of you who think the whole world hates us. When the entire world became France and Germany I don't know. Personally, I think they are ingrates and could care less about either of them.

As far as troop numbers go, here is the list as of May:

US 130,000
UK 9,000
Italy 3,000
Poland 2,400
Ukraine 1,600
Spain 1,300* - ran like cowards
Netherlands 1,100
Australia 800
Romania 700
Bulgaria 480
Thailand 440
Denmark 420
Honduras 368*
El Salvador 361
Dominican Republic 302
Hungary 300
Japan 240
Norway 179 4.0 5.8
Mongolia 160
Azerbaijan 150
Portugal 128
Latvia 120
Lithuania 118
Slovakia 102
Czech Republic 80
Philippines 80
Albania 70
Georgia 70
New Zealand 61
Moldova 50
Macedonia 37
Estonia 31
Canada 31
Kazakhstan 25

We should thank these countries for their willingness to join the war on terror!"

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 26, 2004 10:41 PM

I don't doubt that the figures represented here are correct. However, the number of countries represented in this entry amount to 18% of the 191 countries recognized by the United Nations. When 157 out of 191 countries suggest that your foreign policy needs reconsideration and demonstrate their concern by withdrawing their support from your country's agenda, it's pretty fair to say that the world is against you.

George Bush is an American president. If he loses his bid for reelection, his replacement will be an American president. Frankly, the more I hear my fellow countrymen feeling a need to defend the actions of our president the more I believe our president must not be doing a good job! If he is not doing a good job, then he should be replaced by someone who will!

Rodney Sistrunk

Posted by: Rodney Sistrunk at September 4, 2004 01:17 PM

Rodney

How many of those 157 countries are Islamic? I'd bet at least half, and the other half mostly dictatorships.

Your argument doesn't wash. Althugh some countries don't have troops in Iraq they are also helping. Countries such as Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait, UAE, etc.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 4, 2004 03:03 PM

Rdoney Sistunk,
Who is the other option to replace Bush with? Kerry, Mr higher taxes and less defense? Nader, Mr I can't figure out what party to run with so I'll pick a couple, he can't even get on the ticket in PA. And don't tell me it's the republicans, because they want him to run.

So I ask again, who is this wonderful replacement that you have come up with?

Your just another liberal with a knack for giving the bad news without any answers or means of helping.

Posted by: Wayne at September 4, 2004 03:19 PM

Posted by: Rodney Sistrunk at September 4, 2004 01:17 PM

"George Bush is an American president. If he loses his bid for reelection, his replacement will be an American president. Frankly, the more I hear my fellow countrymen feeling a need to defend the actions of our president the more I believe our president must not be doing a good job! If he is not doing a good job, then he should be replaced by someone who will!"

GOOD POST RODNEY!

Only one correction. George Bush is the Supreme Court Appointed President Of The U.S. and they are still at it.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 4, 2004 03:47 PM

THE MUSLIMS HAVE EMBRACED BUSH AS THE NEXT DICTATOR!

Wayne errr. "Pain"-In-The-A** do you sleep with a photo of GW JR. underneath your pillow?

ROSEMONT, Ill. - They stop abruptly when they see the 5-foot-tall photo of President Bush, with "muslimsforbush.com" above his head.

Then come the outbursts.

"Disgusting," said one onlooker. "Take that down," said another.

At the largest annual convention of American Muslims, a pro-Bush booth has stirred anger among attendees who believe the president's actions since Sept. 11, 2001, have hurt more innocent Muslims than terrorists.

"I think President Bush has misled not only the United States, but the world," said Noor Maciael, an educator who called the booth "disgusting" and planned to vote for Democrat John Kerry. "He has put us in a situation where the whole world is hating this country."

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 4, 2004 04:07 PM

Posted by: Calamity Jane at August 26, 2004 10:41 PM

Rodney

Calamity is as obsolete as Zell Miller, I don't even know why you bother to answer her, it, or whatever. I simply ignore it's postings.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 4, 2004 04:25 PM

d. jones

Of course you ignore my postings. Why? Because they are the truth and you cannot dispute their accuracy.

I think your beliefs will soon be obsolete. Only when morals, values and principles become obsolete, will the US will no longer be a country.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 4, 2004 06:45 PM

d.jokes,
I'm telling un-stAble that your flirting with Rodne Stunks. Why can't you answer Calamity Jane? By the way, I think it's safe to say she is a woman. I know it's hard to tell when you as feminine as you are, but trust me on this one. She is right, you can't fight the truth, you can't handle the truth. Your whole beleif is based on hatred and lies. You cited you respect John McCain at one point, what do you have to say about him now? He has supported Bush in case you didn't hear.

I know you will probably just call me dummy, but facts are facts and your wrong.

Posted by: Wayne at September 4, 2004 08:10 PM

TO ALL WHO MAY WANT TO HELP A GI

Real Stories from Real Americans
A Plea for Help
Posted by: Spiros D - Baghdad, zz (8/31/2004)

I am a soldier stationed in Iraq concerned about the role of private contractors in this war, and would like to ask for your help. How can you who are way over there help me way over here? Well, let me tell you how.

For those of you not aware, the US military is not the only US organization that is functioning over here in Iraq. A large US contractor called KBR (Kellog, Brown, and Root), a daughter company of Halliburton (once run by VP Dick Cheney), is operating on every US base in Iraq.

KBR manages many of the solider services that we have here on the base; things like running the food service, waste disposal, pumping the latrines, laundry services, movement and control, and the central distribution center. KBR is also scheduled to take over all fuel hauling and freight hauling in general. When things started to heat up earlier this year KBR put a hold on taking over hauling operations. Now that things are seeming to come back under some control KBR is looking at taking over again.

Now I know you are asking yourself what in the world this has to do with you.

Let me explain... KBR is now requesting, and the army is allowing, US soldiers to ride "shot gun" in KBR convoys hauling KBR goods all over Iraq. KBR is afraid to be out on the roads alone and want our US soldiers to risk their lives riding shot gun for their missions.

KBR is currently staffed by mainly non US international personnel along with a growing number of Iraqis. Most do not speak English, none have had military training on defensive driving, proper convoy operations, avoiding ambushes, navigating around IED's [hidden roadside bombs], proper procedure for calling in support or medivac or fire support, procedures to follow after taking enemy fire, the list goes on. These drivers are simply paid drivers that are making roughly 5 -8 times our wages and get paid whether the freight arrives or not.

KBR is requesting that US soldiers risk their lives at the hands of inexperienced and improperly trained individuals to provide them with security. Now there is no doubt that we need to protect KBR's missions but we have suggested and to date have been denied the opportunity to run the convoys with properly modified and equipped military vehicles.

We have suggested that we run in the convoys with every third vehicle being a US Army gun truck with proper drivers and fire support. With this arrangement KBR can still haul the freight in their vehicles but we would run the mission and deal with any situations as they develop the way we have been trained to. This is the only way that most of us want the missions to be run, the others are just afraid to be opposed to the decisions our leadership is making.

Here is where you come in. Out of a desire to honor the oath we took upon entering the army we do not want to disobey a direct order if and when the order comes for us to ride with KBR. We do however want to make all the lawmakers and politicians aware of the danger we are being unnecessarily exposed to on these missions.

Our hope is that each of our friends and loved ones back home will take a few minutes and send out emails to any local, state, and US congressman and senators and demand that they require the US military to stop this practice of allowing US troops in KBR vehicles.

The only ones who have the power to force the military to honor the wishes of the people are the lawmakers and politicians. So please take a moment and send a letter or email to one of your senators or congressman and ask or demand that they inquire into this matter and demand that it cease.

As of this writing, 3rd Platoon of the 283rd TC (my unit) is currently running these missions. We have been warned that it is only a matter of time and my whole unit will be running these missions. If nothing is done back home then more soldiers and myself in particular will be placed in unnecessary danger. Please help.

Thank you for your time and help. I miss you all and look forward to seeing you all again upon my return.

(NOTE: For additional on the ground stories from American servicemen and women, please check out http://www.optruth.org)

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 4, 2004 08:26 PM

What difference does the religion of a country makes. America is suppose to be a Christian nation, but it is illegal to have a Bible is a public school library.

My point is that America is a nation of immigrants. Every one of the 191 countries recognized by the United Nations is represented within our population of American citizens. Therefore, whoever we elect to be the president of these United States is in no small way the president of the people of the whole world. This individual can not get kudos for going to war without legitimate provocation nor should he get a "pat-on-the-back" for passing the need for a resolution onto another administration or generation.

Millions of Americans are Islamic, millions are some denomination of Christian, or Jewish, etc. Approximately 200 Million Americans are 18 years old or older - eligible voters. That's 200 million reasons to select the best president possible and give that man or women the most support we can as a nation.

As for who that man or woman should be who would lead our country, we are blessed in this nation to have many potential leaders who could do as good of a job if not better than our current president. Our job as the citizens of this country is to select the best one we can.

It embarrasses me, as an American, to see political ads that don't tell the whole story or emphasizes partial truths. George Bush lost the popular vote. By Katherine Harris' (Secretary of State, Florida, 2000) own testimony (the thousands of names purged from the voter rolls of Florida, ballots thrown away that should have been counted, etc.) the electoral votes of Florida went to the wrong candidate. But, George Bush is still the president of the USA. How he became president is no longer an issue - he is our president. He gets our support. The presidency is his to keep or lose. If he has done a good job - reelect him. But for God's sake, don't cover up for him or misrepresent his actions or his motives.

This is an election year. We should focus on whom our choices are this election season and elect the best one. But to become disagreeable and to separate ourselves as citizen is ridiculous.

Rodney Sistrunk

Posted by: Rodney Sistrunk at September 4, 2004 09:34 PM

Rodney Sistrunk,
A few words to tell you that you wrote an excellent POST. I complement you for having the courage to tell it like it is. Some people here will hate you for having this kind of courage. Needless to say, I'm in complete agreement with you and what you stated. Let me assure you that I too will be voting for the Kerry/Edwards ticket come November 2, 2004. My warmest regards to you and your loved ones.

Your condensed POST follows:

"...If we had a real attorney general there would probably be a Bush impeachment proceeding. What is going on in this country? Clinton is impeached for lying about a private affair but let’s re-elect Bush for undeservingly overthrowing a government, causing 60% unemployment in Iraq, killing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, thousands of American soldiers wounded and/or killed, failing to preserve longtime alliances with European and other allies, and the list goes on. What are Republicans thinking? Is their no one else within the party who is capable of being president?"
Posted by: Rodney Sistrunk at September 2, 2004 08:05 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 4, 2004 10:53 PM

Rodney,
Show me evidence of how Bush lied and I will lead the march to Washington DC. Show me proof of how this president did not act on our country's best behalf and I will vote for Kerry. Proof not hearsay and democratic talking points.

Did you know that both Kerry and Edwards both voted for use of force in Iraq? What were they thinking and why do we not insist for their resignations? If they had the same intell as our president and our "allies", then why is Bush the bad guy here? He reacted to a perceived threat, and isn't Iraq better off without Saddam? It may be no rose garden there, but don't Iraqis have a chance now? You don't care about the Kurds? Why are the Kurds any less important than the Shiites?

You will probably try and turn this around by pointing out the Sudan, but if we went there first you would undoubtedly attack Bush for not being in Iraq or Iran or N.Korea.

Let me ask all Kerry supporters something. If we did nothing and a terrorist was able to get some kind of biological weapon from Saddam and unleashed it on your loved ones, would you praise Bush for not invading Iraq? Before we invaded Saddam had used weapons like this on his own people and played cat and mouse games with UN inspectors for 12 years.

Please think about this and answer honestly.

Posted by: Wayne at September 5, 2004 07:00 PM

What has John Kerry done in all of his years as a Senator? Nothing. What has John Edwards done in his first term as a Senator? Nothing. What would they do for this country? Far worse. Kerry has his sugarmama, Edwards is a trial liar, I mean lawyer, making millions off of medical malpractice lawsuits. This amounts to nothing in common with the common people.

Bush/Cheney

Posted by: Joe at September 6, 2004 12:52 AM

Wayne,

you wouldn't be able to recognize a Bush lie anyway. His lies are all over the place for anyone who has a mind and common sense to see but unfortunately that doesn't seem to include you. Maybe you do deserve to have GW Bush around for a few more years. You and GW seem to have something in common--some people call it blindness.

Your condensed POST follows:

"Show me evidence of how Bush lied and I will lead the march to Washington DC. Show me proof of how this president did not act on our country's best behalf and I will vote for Kerry. Proof not hearsay and democratic talking points."
Posted by: Wayne at September 5, 2004 07:00 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 6, 2004 04:11 AM

TO ALL WHO CARE ABOUT OUR SECURITY:

I just read the following information and thought you would like to read it too. This happened out in the streets of NYC. The POST follows:

TIM DUNCAN: My son was arrested Tuesday night at a demonstration. A peaceful, non-violent demonstration. He wasn't allowed to disperse. They threw the nets up on one end of the block, and then the other end of the block, and swept up everybody on the block. I have not been in contact with him that Tuesday night. I know he hasn't seen a lawyer. This morning, I went, I have been here to wait for him to get out, to find out some kind of information. I went this morning and pinned a note on the fence back at the parking lot. I got to admit that's something that I thought would happen in another country under a dictatorship, that when parents have children that are disappeared by the state, that they pin a note to their child on a fence saying if you get out, please contact me at this number. I never thought I would ever do that in this country to have to do that to my child, exercising his freedom to be able to demonstrate in this country. We talked to a parent who also, her son was just recently released. That son spent a day in the hospital and the parent had no idea that he was taken to the hospital or spent the day in the hospital. When my son was arrested, we got an arrest number for him, we took the number to try to get an arraignment time for that. We said he hadn't been processed. When we showed we had an arrest number, they said where did you get that from? Later on that night that number disappeared off of the computer. They said well maybe your son has been released. We went to the place where we knew would he go. He wasn't there. We came back this morning and found out that the arrest number had been changed from what it was previously. No one has any information. I am now in a situation where my son has been disappeared by this state, by the government of this country, by the police force. And I am pinning notes to a fence in the city park saying, “Son, if you get out, please contact me. Love, Dad.” I never thought I would ever have to do that in this country. It breaks my heart for where we live and it breaks my heart for what my son is going through right now.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 6, 2004 05:12 PM

Able,
Did thei guy's son have a permit to protest? Was the group he was with violent? For all I know this could be fiction that you wrote. Where is the web address for this? From now on when you state "facts", try and support them with evidence.

Posted by: Wayne at September 6, 2004 05:55 PM

Here's another article that you pro-Bushites should read to educate yourselves. The article is at:

http://optruth.com/main.cfm?actionId=blogShowExcerpts&blogId=14&year=2004&month=9&day=6&Action=ShowCalendar&lnav=7

The article follows:

How the Pentagon has failed U.S troops

Policies that hurt

New York - In the 16 months since President George W. Bush landed on the U.S. aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and declared major combat activities in Iraq complete, the nearly 400,000 U.S. service men and women deployed in active duty around the globe have faced unprecedented difficulties.

By now, the litany of strategic miscalculations in Iraq by civilian leaders at the Pentagon is well known. What the public and news media often neglect, however, are the less publicized policies that have quietly but insidiously undermined American troops, making it increasingly challenging to fight under the U.S. flag.

Four major Pentagon policies in the past year have undermined the morale of U.S. troops and their families - and are likely to leave a negative long-term impact on the ability of the armed services to recruit and retain service members in the long term.

First, in the dog days of August 2003, while Congress recessed, the Pentagon quietly cut payments for imminent danger and family separation. Earlier that summer, Congress had given the nearly 150,000 U.S. troops serving in Iraq and the 9,000 serving in Afghanistan a $75 a month imminent danger pay increase and a $150 monthly allowance to fund rent and child care for their families at home. The administration cited budgetary concerns for this pay cut. Yet the two payments totaled approximately $450 million - a meager amount next to the $400 billion 2003 defense budget or the $166 billion spent in 2003 on supplemental spending bills for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The White House reluctantly agreed to reinstate the bonuses after outrage in the press and Congress, but had already sent a damaging, demoralizing message to troops in the field: compensating service members would be among the last priorities in war time.

Second, by autumn 2003 it had become apparent that the U.S. troops on the front lines in Iraq were inadequately equipped. Their Humvee vehicles were not designed to withstand front-line combat and soon became the target of choice for insurgents. And by October 2003, although Congress had allocated funds for all U.S. troops to wear 16-pound, ceramic-plated Interceptor body armor, as many as 51,000 American soldiers and civilian administrators in Iraq still had not been equipped with the gear.

Family members of the service men and women serving in Iraq recognized the equipment shortage. Throughout America, worried parents and spouses bought expensive flak jackets and other critical gear and sent it to their loved ones by FedEx. For almost a year, until new flak jackets and heavily armored Humvees arrived, U.S. troops confronted the dangers in Iraq with inadequate equipment and protection.

Third, though the Pentagon had not planned sufficiently to protect and equip U.S. troops, in early September 2003 it decided to lengthen the deployment of nearly 20,000 National Guard and Reservists serving in Iraq. Over the following 11 months, more than 50,000 National Guard and Reservists would be deployed abroad; they now make up 40 percent of the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. These "citizen-soldiers," who had expected to serve one weekend a month, were now being sent for unknown and ever extended durations to the front lines, leaving behind families and full time jobs. These National Guard and Reservists are often the sole family breadwinners, and many work in local police and fire departments, so their absence weakens already insufficient local and state first-response capabilities.

Fourth, the Pentagon has grown increasingly unreliable in the eyes of the troops as it changes the rules of the game when the going gets tough. Faced with desperate troop shortages, particularly in the army, the administration has begun to disregard its agreements with service members. In June 2003, the Pentagon announced a Stop Loss policy to keep more than 10,000 service members in the field beyond their enlistment period. In other words, troops stationed in Kandahar or Najaf or about to be deployed Iraq or Afghanistan who were nearing the end of their service contracts are now being forced to remain in combat - involuntarily drafted for at least 90 days or until their unit is redeployed home. This back-door draft targets already battle-weary troops who have sacrificed the most and fought the hardest.

These four policies, the result of poor military and strategic planning at the Pentagon, are hurting Americans who have volunteered to serve during wartime. This week in New York, the president and the Republican Party will proudly celebrate their security accomplishments. Yet the baseline test of a government's national security credibility during wartime should be its authentic compassion for its soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen and women and their families.

Paul Rieckhoff recently returned from Iraq, where he led a platoon in the 3rd Infantry Division for 10 months. He is founder and executive director of Operation Truth, an advocacy and educational organization created to support American troops in Iraq. Dafna Hochman, a doctoral student in political science at Columbia University, was a foreign policy and defense adviser in the U.S. Senate.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 6, 2004 06:56 PM

Wayne,

See what I mean? Isn't this supposed to be a free country? Not that it matters but Yes, his group had a permit and he also had a copy of the US Constitution where the first amendment says that it's OK to protest. It appears that our constitution is quickly going down the drain. In the mean time, the "guy's son" has disappeared. This kind of thing used to happen in another country, somewhere else. Can you tell me where and when? Do you remember? Do you care?

Your condensed POST follows:

"Able, Did thei guy's son have a permit to protest? Was the group he was with violent? For all I know this could be fiction that you wrote. Where is the web address for this? From now on when you state "facts", try and support them with evidence."
Posted by: Wayne at September 6, 2004 05:55 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 6, 2004 07:26 PM

Wayne,

you wouldn't be able to recognize a Bush lie anyway. His lies are all over the place for anyone who has a mind and common sense to see but unfortunately that doesn't seem to include you. Maybe you do deserve to have GW Bush around for a few more years. You and GW seem to have something in common--some people call it blindness.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 6, 2004 04:11 AM

Still no evidence. Is this the best you can do?

The last post you cited from;
http://optruth.com/main.cfm?actionId=blogShowExcerpts&blogId=14&year=2004&month=9&day=6&Action=ShowCalendar&lnav=7

Did Kerry vote for these things? I think not, he voted against them, yet you give Kerry a pass, WHY?

Posted by: Wayne at September 6, 2004 07:34 PM

Abel

I did some investigating on Rieckhoff, Chasteen, and Marchal.

Rieckhoff is a shill for the DNC. He has been a on talk radio with Al Franken, gave the DNC Saturday rebuttal to Bush. I think he is another Kerry, bad mouthing everything while soldier's are in harm's way.

Chasteen - other than he graduated from high school in 1978 - nothing found about him

Marchal is a Canadian!! Not even an American so why is he even involved?

Just a bunch of bombthrowers for the DNC.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 6, 2004 09:15 PM

Everyone

The story Abel posted about the protestor allegedly being held is on:

http://www.democracynow.org

The darlings of this website are Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Bill Moyers - you get the drift. Peaceniks who think "give peace a chance" and see conspiracy in every facet of life.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 6, 2004 09:25 PM

Able,
I know you think you are answering my questions, but let me repeat one part of it.

Where do you get your facts from?

I will wait for your reply.

Posted by: Wayne at September 6, 2004 10:17 PM

Able,
I don't really care about the protester to be honest with you. How is his protesting helping out troops and the American people? Seems the web site you noted is equally hard on democrats as well as republicans.

Did you bother to read the letters from the soldiers? I didn't see any of them complaining about our commander in cheif. It's a war, soldiers get uncomfortable. I know some are dying, and for that I am forever grateful for all military men and women's service to this great nation.

Maybe you can explain why Kerry voted for the war, refused to fund the war, defended his position on voting for use of force just the other week ,and today said it was the wrong war at the wrong time?

This is why he will lose.

Posted by: Wayne at September 6, 2004 10:42 PM

Wayne,
Regarding that story I posted about the disappearance of a protester. Yes, it's at democracynow.org and the staff are as follows:

Democracy Now!, host Amy Goodman, co-host Juan Gonzalez and producer/correspondent Jeremy Scahill have won numerous awards including:

- George Polk Award, Radio Reporting
- Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Prize, First Place, International Radio Documentary
- Alfred I. DuPont-Columbia Silver Baton for Excellence in Broadcast Journalism
- Edwin H. Major Armstrong Award, Best Radio Documentary
- National Federation of Community Broadcasters, Golden Reels (several)
- Project Censored Award, Most Censored Story
- Society of Professional Journalists, Best Investigative Reporting; Award for Excellence, Series/Investigative Reporting
- United Press International, Best Radio Feature
- Associated Press, Best Enterprise Reporting
- Electronic Frontier Foundation, Pioneer Award
- American Women in Radio & Television, Pinnacle Award for Radio Programming
- National Catholic Association of Broadcasters, Best Documentary; Best Religious Documentary
- Radio/Television News Directors Association, Regional News Series/Documentary Award

While it may be true that Michael Moore may have made some contributions of articles, etc., there is no evidence that he is a part of the staff. You are always looking for proof well look into this if anybody claims that he is a member of the staff. You attitude is all wrong, the question should be to show proof that the story is not true. Why give GW Bush a free pass?

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 7, 2004 01:05 AM

Didn't you pro-GW Bush guys read the Letter to Senator Dole. This was written by a Republican with an open mind and eyes. I got this copy from here in the Kerry and The Bronze Star Controversy Blog. The Letter Follows:

Please consider the words of my brother, who served our country for 30 years and is a Viet Nam Vet. This is a letter he wrote to Robert Dole.

August 23, 2004

Dear Senator Dole,

I am a Viet Nam vet and retired U.S. Army Colonel. I wore my country's uniform for over thirty years. For all those years I was a registered Republican and believe I am a conservative by nature. Your recent comments have caused me to write this letter.

I graduated from West point in 1966 and it was our class that lost the most graduates in the Viet Nam war. Rick Atkinson won a Pulitzer Prize telling the story of our class's involvement in that war.

Earlier this month Walter Cronkite did a wonderful piece for NPR about the Gulf of Tonkin and the Tonkin Resolution. He tells how all but two Senators and every single representative in congress voted for the resolution that got us so heavily involved in Viet Nam. Senator Morse from Oregon verbalized his dissent. Forty years ago this month, this brave Senator stood and said that passing the resolution would cause us to be bogged down in Southeast Asia for years to come, thousands of lives would be lost, and in the end, we would end up doing exactly what the French did by saying we had had enough. How prophetic. Fifty-eight thousand lives later we finally opted out.

Over thirty of my classmates were killed in their youth fighting that war. They were my dear friends. Of all the things I experienced in combat, perhaps one of the most difficult was writing letters to the mothers of my soldiers who had just lost their son. Hindsight now tells us the war was a huge mistake.

I am proud of my thirty years in the military. And I am even more proud of the soldiers I had the honor to serve with. Most, but not all, served with dignity, pride, and competence. They were willing to fight and die for their country. All they asked was their country send them only if it was absolutely necessary.

When I returned from Viet Nam my young bride was thankful. We had dated and got engaged at West Point and she, like me, was saddened whenever we heard about the death of another classmate. One day she said to me. "I just don’t understand it. As far as I’m concerned, this war is nothing but old men sending young men to fight and die for the old men’s agenda". She was right, of course, and thousands of people are now dead. Most of those soldiers believed what they did was absolutely necessary and there was no other way.

Today I read your comments in the paper. You seem to think an apology to Viet Nam vets is in order. If that's the case, the one I'm looking for is from the people who sent us there in the first place.

I will close by thanking you for your service to our nation in World War Two.

Sincerely,

Mark...

(I am very proud of my brother, and you should also know, he is now voting for Kerry.)

Posted by: rsr at August 23, 2004 07:00 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 7, 2004 02:15 AM

This supposed "leak" information has since been discredited, Noor Khan was arrested as a double-agent for al Qaeda (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/8/122418.shtml).

Posted by: Dr. T. Arthur Behrens at September 7, 2004 11:11 AM

Able,

I have looked for that story, I still have not found it. It has disappeared off of that web site. I find it hard to believe anything you say if you have no proof of what you say. This is proof, Unemployment 5.4, the economy is growing, jobs created in the last month 144,000. This is the proof that someone needs to see to be able to make an intelligent choice this election. Your lies will not win this election, only the truth.

Posted by: David Lowery at September 7, 2004 01:47 PM

Dr. Arthur Behrens,

The way I understood it, an al Queida agent became a double agent when he began cooperating with CIA agents in order to help catch other active al Quaida agents. This CIA activity went down the drain after the White House leaked the news that this named al Queida agent had been caught. This leak was done in order for the White House to make some political points. I don't remember the specific name of the al Queida agent.

Your condensed POST follows:

This supposed "leak" information has since been discredited, Noor Khan was arrested as a double-agent for al Qaeda (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/8/122418.shtml).

Posted by: Dr. T. Arthur Behrens at September 7, 2004 11:11 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 7, 2004 02:01 PM

From the campaign trail, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts weighed in.

"Only George W. Bush could celebrate over a record budget deficit of $422 billion, a loss of 1.6 million jobs, and Medicare premiums that are up by a record 17 percent," Kerry said.

"There is no way to portray a record deficit as good news," said Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina, top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. "From any perspective, today's deficit numbers are a cause for alarm and a call to action."

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 7, 2004 02:12 PM

d.jones,
From the campaign trail Kerry also weighed in on Iraq saying he would suppot the use of force even knowing what he knows today, and then said this is the wrong war at the wrong time. How can I beleive anything he says? He is on both sides of every issue.

And if unemployment has fallen from 5.5% when Bush took office to 5.4%, how can we still be missing over a million jobs? Can anyone explain that?

Posted by: Wayne at September 7, 2004 07:54 PM

Wayne,
Could it be that John Kerry is on only one side of an issue at a given time in history. Remember that it's possible that he changed his mind due to receiving more information regarding the issue. Don't you think that's possible or do you always keep the same side of the issue even after you learn that the other side is more reasonable and makes better sense? Why don't you think about this for a while and reconsider your conclusions?

Your condensed POST follows:

"d.jones, From the campaign trail Kerry also weighed in on Iraq saying he would suppot the use of force even knowing what he knows today, and then said this is the wrong war at the wrong time. How can I beleive anything he says? He is on both sides of every issue.
And if unemployment has fallen from 5.5% when Bush took office to 5.4%, how can we still be missing over a million jobs? Can anyone explain that?"
Posted by: Wayne at September 7, 2004 07:54 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 7, 2004 09:04 PM

Can't you people see that GW JR wants America to get NUKED! This is a lot closer to the truth than you think! Well, Calamity's Wig will be blown off HAHAHA, and (Wayne) Pain-In-A** will run like a Coward to the ocean. I can tell you Pain, that won't help you!

http://www.keralanext.com/news/?id=46152

World News: How many wars is Bush ready to fight? (SPECIAL)

Whatever he says in New York this week, George Bush has already made his core case for a second term.

"I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind," he said earlier this year. The question is how many wars are on the president's mind.

In his first term, Bush began two unfinished wars -- the war against Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. Two more potential wars -- with North Korea and Iran -- loom on the horizon.

The president has flatly declared that he won't allow those two countries to develop nuclear weapons. But North Korea may have crossed that line long ago and Iran could be only months away from having the technical capability to build a nuclear warhead.

So far, the Bush administration has relied on diplomacy, in concert with allies in Europe and Asia, to try to halt the spread of nuclear weapons.

But the option of carrying out a pre-emptive strike on the nuclear facilities of both North Korea and Iran is still seriously discussed, even though it threatens to trigger a wider war in both cases.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d.jones at September 7, 2004 11:21 PM

In response to: David Lowery at September 7, 2004 01:47 PM

The economic model for our nation calls for a 26 million new jobs increase over the thirteen year period from 1992 to 2005. Let’s break the number down so that we can better see our goal.

2,000,000 jobs per year
166,667 jobs per month
38,465 jobs per week

The vast majority of the 2.7 million job losses since the 2001 recession began were the result of permanent changes in the U.S. economy and are not coming back, which means the labor market will not regain strength until new positions are created in novel and dynamic economic sectors, a Federal Reserve Bank of New York study has concluded.

Now the math gets interesting. Now we have to add 2.7 million to the 26 million which gives a total need of 28.7 million or a 10.38% increase in jobs creations growth. So when you tell me we had an increase of 144,000 new jobs in a month while needing to have created 183,967 jobs in the same period (provided the production of jobs had remained on task for the past three years - which has not happened) causes me to be grateful that it wasn't worse. But it means that the job has not been done. If we create 144,000 per month for this year we will have a net job loss of 479,604 jobs in this year alone.

Now as for the reason the unemployment rate look so attractive is because it takes into account the increases in retired individual, incarcerated individual, those who have given up on finding a job, and military personnel. This class of individuals is called "Not in labor force" which is growing at a rate of about 4%. In short, 5.5% unemployment is not comparable to what it meant during the previous administration.

Posted by: Rodney Sistrunk at September 8, 2004 03:01 AM

Wayne,

There is a loss of jobs buts it's a democratic twisting of the facts. Because of the strengthening economy and better paying jobs that are being developed in the private sector, as well as the new small business that are opening, many people have gone from working 2 and 3 jobs to only 1 job. So democrats can say there is a loss of jobs (while not explaining it) and then ignore the falling unemployment rate.

John Kerry isn't just on both sides of the issue, he's on every side of the issue whne he's on the campaign trail. It's what side of the issue when he votes that matters and in the concerns of the average American Kerry is usually on the wrong side.

By history, I guess Abel means day to day. 8 different positions on the war in Iraq is not leadership. We can't wait for a leader to make up his mind about what he's going to do when the enemy comes knocking at the door. What kiind of a leader is going to send our troops to war and then say, "Ooops I made a mistake, everybody come home know." and then two weeks later say, "I was right when I sent you, so let's go again" Only to change his mind and then call everybody back.

Kerry is Monday Morning quarterbacking the Iraqi war and that's bad policy. You can't win the game on Monday, you win it on Sunday when the game is being played. Changing your mind about what you want to eat for lunch is fine. Constantly changing your mind about the future security of America is dangerous and shows instability.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 8, 2004 04:19 AM

Able,
I have thought about it and your right about everything. I support Kerry.

I have given it more thought and I disagree with you and am now supporting Bush.

Now that I have thoought about it some more, Kerry is right.

No, no, no, I have really thought about this, Bush is the man for the job.

What infromation could Kerry have possibly received to make him change his mind in the past 2 weeks other than he is losing?

Why don't you think about how often and how many times he has changed his mind and explain it to me.

And why won't you answer my unemployment question?

And if unemployment has fallen from 5.5% when Bush took office to 5.4%, how can we still be missing over a million jobs? Can anyone explain that?

Posted by: Wayne at September 7, 2004 07:54 PM

Posted by: Wayne at September 8, 2004 07:58 AM

Able,

If he only changed his mind once that would be a sound argument, but he changes his mind like most people change their underwear. He has flip-flopped on the war in Iraq so many times, I bet he could win a gold at the Olympics.

Please quit trying to defend a man who can not be defended.

Posted by: David Lowery at September 8, 2004 10:32 AM

David Lowery,
I know what you mean, first he starts out saying that we need to attack Iraq because it presents us with an imminant danger. Then he says that we attacked Iraq because we need to be rid of Saddam Hussein, the evil one. After that he says that we need to introduce freedom to the Iraqis. Now he says that we are fighting Terrorism in Iraq. Yes, I agree with you. George W. Bush nevers seems to know exactly why we are in Iraq. The truth is that he wanted to be in control of Iraq's oil but he cannot bring himself to tell the truth. I'm still waiting to hear what he's going to tell us now. I promise that I'm not going to defend George W. Bush anymore and that I'm going to vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket.

Your condensed POST follows:

"Able, If he only changed his mind once that would be a sound argument, but he changes his mind like most people change their underwear. He has flip-flopped on the war in Iraq so many times, I bet he could win a gold at the Olympics.
Please quit trying to defend a man who can not be defended."
Posted by: David Lowery at September 8, 2004 10:32 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 8, 2004 11:35 AM

Abel,

Your getting as bad as d.

Don't even try and spin it that way. I can't believe this, your man changes daily, and you try and say the same about the PRESIDENT. You can call the PRESIDENT a lot of things, flip-flopper is not one of them. Kerry has said that we did the right thing going after Saddame because he had WMD's. Oops we might be wrong on that account. But nonetheless, we deposed an evil empire, who, whether you want to admit it or not had terrorist ties. Maybe not to 9/11 but he was still protecting the scum of the earth. Before you say I'm a racist, I don't consider terrorist Muslims, they are dogs of hate and deserve to die.

Posted by: David Lowery at September 8, 2004 01:47 PM

Rodney Sistrunk,

WHY? Are you telling me that Clinton and Bush are judged differently?

Posted by: David Lowery at September 8, 2004 03:52 PM

David Lowery,

You really should know that GW Bush is widely known as the Master Flip-Flopper of them all. The latest happened when GW Bush didn't want to give full budget control and full personnel authority to the new Chief to be named of our Homeland Security. Well, the pressure started coming in and guess what, just this morning, GW Bush decided that he would in fact give the Chief to be named full budget powers and full personnel authority as well. By full personnel authority, I mean the power to hire and fire. This happened this morning. You say, "You can call the PRESIDENT a lot of things, flip-flopper is not one of them." As a matter of fact, that's exactly what he is. So what do you think about JW Bush, our Master Flip-Flopper?

Your condensed POST follows:

"Abel, Your getting as bad as d.
Don't even try and spin it that way. I can't believe this, your man changes daily, and you try and say the same about the PRESIDENT. You can call the PRESIDENT a lot of things, flip-flopper is not one of them. Kerry has said that we did the right thing going after Saddame because he had WMD's. Oops we might be wrong on that account. But nonetheless, we deposed an evil empire, who, whether you want to admit it or not had terrorist ties. Maybe not to 9/11 but he was still protecting the scum of the earth. Before you say I'm a racist, I don't consider terrorist Muslims, they are dogs of hate and deserve to die."
Posted by David Lowery at September 8, 2004 01:47 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 8, 2004 06:53 PM

You can call the PRESIDENT a lot of things, flip-flopper is not one of them.

Posted by: David Lowery at September 8, 2004 01:47 PM

David please don't forget. GW JR first stated the war on terror couldn't be one and then he says it can be one. If that isn't a flip flop I don't know what is. GW JR will get his walking papers, and as Louis said a one way ticket back to Texas just like Daddy. Why do you people love this Dumb Tyrannt so much? I really don't get it!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 8, 2004 08:51 PM

d.jones,
When you win something it is called won. W O N.
Not one. Learn how to spell.

When you call everyone dummy and you can't even spell won, what does that make you?

Something to think about.

Posted by: Wayne at September 8, 2004 10:55 PM

well if we dont get bush out of office we will get hit again in this country and it will make 9/11 look like nothing i think kerry will change how that region looks at us, and by the way bush was never my president.

Posted by: dianne at September 9, 2004 12:58 AM

The fact of the matter is that the division within our country will become the demise of our country. "Any house divided against itself shall not stand."

I read this earlier:

"Rodney Sistrunk,

WHY? Are you telling me that Clinton and Bush are judged differently?

Posted by: David Lowery at September 8, 2004 03:52 PM"

You just don't get it. Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck could have been president.

September 7, 2001: 11:03 a.m. ET

Rate hits 4.9%, highest in four years, as payrolls sink 113,000


This was a CNN Money headline, 9/7/01. The current unemployment rate is at 5.4% with a war going on (let me explain, during a war because of the need to produce goods for the war itself and reconstruction, the demand for employees trends higher. Hence, if your unemployment numbers are higher during a war, it underscores a private sector slow down.) What I am saying is that it is more logical be outraged that unemployment is up than defend policies that facilitated it.

Posted by: Rodney Sistrunk at September 9, 2004 01:17 AM

Posted by: Wayne at September 8, 2004 10:55 PM

Now the Dumb A** wants to teach a Wang certified dedicated word processer how to spell. "Pain-In-The-A** as I noted in a different post. I will no longer respond to your comments. They reflect your personality as well as your Bigot, Racist, Right Wing BS, just like GW JR. They are outdated. This is the 21 Century you NUTCASE! Get out of Colonial American with Zell Miller! On second thought....Leave Ole' Zell there, he has no way of fitting in this Century. Hell he barely fit in the past Century. I bet he went fishing with Moses in the Red Sea.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 9, 2004 03:20 AM

It is amazing how they try and use what is being used against them. One sure way to know someone is losing, they start acting like a child and lose control of logic. Example: I know you are but what am I. This is exactly what the dumbs er dems are doing.

Posted by: David Lowery at September 9, 2004 08:53 AM

d.

How are people like Wayne or I bigots or racists?
The only people I see spreading hate and bigotry is people like you.

Posted by: David Lowery at September 9, 2004 11:01 AM

d. jokes

HA HA HA - a certified Wang word processor? I worked at Wang as a Senior Technical Editor in the 80s. There is no way that Wang would have hired you. And as far as doing that work in 2004 - THERE IS NO SUCH THING. Wang word processors are obsolete - just like your state of mind.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 9, 2004 11:45 AM

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 9, 2004 11:45 AM

You Horse Riding Idiot. I went on from there to become Microsoft Certified in all areas. I was Wang certified in 1983. When you put your first wig on and jumped on a pony!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 9, 2004 12:56 PM

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 9, 2004 11:45 AM

Calamity Pain, I will have to get back to you later, I have updates on a PC to complete. Go take a bath, you smell like a dead horse! Just like you posts.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 9, 2004 01:10 PM

d.,

Can't answer my post? I will ask it again.

How am I and Wayne Bigots or racist?

Posted by: David Lowery at September 9, 2004 02:19 PM

Dave and Wayne

When they resort to calling you a racist it's a sure sign you are winning the argument against a liberal. :) They have nothing else.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 9, 2004 05:40 PM

d.jokes,
I can't stop laughing. Maybe you and unAble can get together and dp the WANG thing. Everybody wang ching tonight? You make me laugh, I'm gonna pee my pants.

One for won, now wang word processing, man you are funny.

Cant breath, make him stop someone.

Posted by: Wayne at September 9, 2004 07:53 PM

LOL haha!

I am still laughing at my posts about Calamity Pain. Sorry David.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d.jones at September 9, 2004 09:40 PM

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 9, 2004 11:45 AM

Calamity Pain, I will have to get back to you later, I have updates on a PC to complete. Go take a bath, you smell like a dead horse! Just like you posts.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 9, 2004 01:10 PM

Please allow me to translate;

The updates he is speaking of are an online dating service, and Calamity, he just doesn't know how to say he likes you. You remember the days when you liked someone so you hit them? He is still there.

It's ok d.jokes, noone is gonna take your crayons. No go play with your Wang. I couldn't resist, I'm sorry everyone. It's funny though isn't it? Wang!!!

Posted by: Wayne at September 9, 2004 09:43 PM

If I ever thought Wayne Pain-In-The-A** was dumb, Bin Laden has you beat, but not by much!

Bin Laden Deputy: U.S. Will Be Defeated

CAIRO, Egypt - Osama bin Laden's chief deputy proclaimed the United States will ultimately be defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan in a videotape broadcast Thursday that appeared to be a rallying call for al-Qaida ahead of the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The defeat of America in Iraq and Afghanistan has become a matter of time, with God's help," Ayman al-Zawahri said on the tape, which was broadcast by the pan-Arab television station Al-Jazeera. "The Americans in both countries are between two fires, if they continue they bleed to death and if they withdraw they lose everything."

Posted by: d.jones at September 9, 2004 10:00 PM

David,
We are racists and bigots because we don't agree with him and his side. Don't you see that game yet? They claim they are smeared for simply disagreeing with the Bush administration, after they call him a liar, say that he misled this country when they vote and say the same things, and non stop attack Bush at every turn.

That is why we are racists and bigots, maybe they have redifined those words as well and now it means something nice. Naw, probably not.

d.jokes, your too funny.

Posted by: Wayne at September 9, 2004 10:04 PM

A Very Good Comparison of Kerry and Bush year by year to date:

http://www.independent-media.tv/itemprint.cfm?fmedia_id=7073&fcategory_desc=The%20Zero%20and%20The%20Hero

The Zero and The Hero
May 10, 2004

Timeline Comparing The Lives of Bush and Kerry: Birth - 1998
By: Todd Smyth
Independent Media TV

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d.jones at September 9, 2004 10:05 PM

http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/jphuck/Book4Ch.3.html

CHAPTER 3

GEORGE W. BUSH'S EARLY YEARS

CONTENTS>

1. BUSH?S COLLEGE YEARS

2. AVOIDING THE VIETNAM WAR

3. A GIRL FRIEND?S ABORTION

4. DRUNK DRIVING ? AND AVOIDING JURY DUTY

5. CHARGES OF COCAINE USE

6. FAILING IN THE OIL INDUSTRY

7. THE TEXAS RANGERS

8. EMBARRASSED BY HIS DAUGHTERS

9. AN EMBARRASSED UNCLE
5. CHARGES OF COCAINE USE. While campaigning for the presidency in 2000, Bush was quick to answer some questions about his personal life. He was candid when he denied having extramarital affairs since his 1977 marriage. Rumors floated that Bush had smoked pot and snorted cocaine during his partying days in the 1970s. He acknowledged that he had been arrested for a college prank at Yale where he stole a Christmas wreath. And he had another run- in with law enforcement authorities while at Yale after he and other students tried to tear down the goal posts after a football game with Princeton. Bush acknowledged having a drinking problem until he made the decision to quit in 1986 at the age of 40. But he never admitted to having any arrests -- until a story broke only five days before Election Day.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d.jones at September 9, 2004 10:18 PM

Constipation and Pain,

Can you please tell me why we haven't cought this man yet!!!! OSAMA BIN LADEN You speak so highly of this administration and this is the main reason I know for sure you are only blowing smoke. For heavans sake he is taking Photos with his senior advisors and sending them to the U.S. where is all this intelligence that calls for a patriot act.

"The Americans in both countries are between two fires, if they continue they bleed to death and if they withdraw they lose everything."

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 10, 2004 01:45 AM

We are getting a lot of new information now. What's going on? It seems that people are finally coming out and talking some truths. Lets all read and become informed citizens prior to the election.

THE DAILY MIS-LEAD

===============================

BUSH ATTACKED NAT'L GUARD SERVICE OF OTHERS

The White House is currently attacking those who raise questions about President Bush's National Guard record. They say the questions about Bush's
failure to fulfill his commitment are "dirty politics."[1] Yet a look at the record shows that it was President George H.W. Bush - and his top campaign strategist George W. Bush - who tried to smear the National Guard and military record of their opponents.

As reported in the August 23, 1988 Los Angeles Times, then Vice President George H.W. Bush's campaign co-chairman John Sununu went on national
television to impugn an opponent's dealings with the National Guard during Vietnam. Sununu specifically claimed Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) had improperly helped get his son into the Texas National Guard during Vietnam. Bentsen's son served in the very same National Guard unit at the very same time as George W. Bush. The Bush campaign's attacks came just days after Bush's allies on Capitol Hill launched a vicious attack on Gov. Michael Dukakis (D-MA) for receiving a draft deferment during the Korean War.[2]

At the time of the coordinated attack, George W. Bush was serving as a senior adviser to his father's campaign.[3]

Sources:

1. "New Questions On Bush National Guard Duty ," CBS2Chicago.com, 9/08/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2327398&l=54246.
2. "Report that Bentsen Got Son into National Guard Also Denied; Dukakis
Angry about Charge of Avoiding Korean War," Los Angeles Times, 8/23/88.
3. GeorgeWBush.com, 9/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2327398&l=54247.

Visit www.Misleader.org for more about Bush administration distortion. »

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 10, 2004 03:37 AM

To Whom It May Concern
by Brooke M. Campbell

I found out that my brother, Sergeant Ryan M. Campbell, was dead during a graduate seminar at Emory University on April 29, 2004. Immediately after a uniformed officer knocked at my mother's door to deliver the message that broke her heart, she called me on my cell phone. She could say nothing but "He's gone." I could say nothing but "No." Over and over again we chanted this refrain to each other over the phone as I made my way across the country to hold her as she wept.

I had made the very same trip in February, cutting classes to spend my brother's two weeks' leave from Baghdad with him. Little did I know then that the next time I saw him would be at Arlington National Cemetery. During those days in February, my brother shared with me his fear, his disillusionment, and his anger. "We had all been led to believe that Iraq posed a serious threat to America as well as its surrounding nations," he said. "We invaded expecting to find weapons of mass destruction and a much more prepared and well-trained Republican Guard waiting for us. It is now a year later, and alas, no weapons of mass destruction or any other real threat, for that matter."

Ryan was scheduled to complete his one-year assignment to Iraq on April 25. But on April 11, he emailed me to let me know not to expect him in Atlanta for a May visit, because his tour of duty had been involuntarily extended. "Just do me one big favor, ok?" he wrote. "Don't vote for Bush. No. Just don't do it. I would not be happy with you."

Last night, I listened to George W. Bush's live, televised speech at the Republican National Convention. He spoke to me and my family when he announced, "I have met with parents and wives and husbands who have received a folded flag, and said a final goodbye to a soldier they loved. I am awed that so many have used those meetings to say that I am in their prayers and to offer encouragement to me. Where does strength like that come from? How can people so burdened with sorrow also feel such pride? It is because they know their loved one was last seen doing good. Because they know that liberty was precious to the one they lost. And in those military families, I have seen the character of a great nation: decent, and idealistic, and strong."

This is my reply: Mr. President, I know that you probably still "don't do body counts," so you may not know that almost one thousand U.S. troops have died doing what you told them they had to do to protect America. Ryan was Number 832. Liberty was, indeed, precious to the one I lost – so precious that he would rather have gone to prison than back to Iraq in February. Like you, I don't know where the strength for "such pride" on the part of people "so burdened with sorrow" comes from; maybe I spent it all holding my mother as she wept. I last saw my loved one at the Kansas City airport, staring after me as I walked away. I could see April 29 written on his sad, sand-chapped and sunburned face. I could see that he desperately wanted to believe that if he died, it would be while "doing good," as you put it. He wanted us to be able to be proud of him. Mr. President, you gave me and my mother a folded flag instead of the beautiful boy who called us "Moms" and "Brookster." But worse than that, you sold my little brother a bill of goods. Not only did you cheat him of a long meaningful life, but you cheated him of a meaningful death. You are in my prayers, Mr. President, because I think that you need them more than anyone on the face of the planet. But you will never get my vote.

So to whom it may concern: Don't vote for Bush. No. Just don't do it. I would not be happy with you.

Sincerely,
Brooke M. Campbell
Atlanta, GA

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 10, 2004 04:06 AM

It seems to me they have pushed GW JR in a Corner at this time. It will be interesting to see how he gets out of this one. His high powered connections are finally failing him. It's about time.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 10, 2004 12:45 PM

"We are getting a lot of new information now. What's going on? It seems that people are finally coming out and talking some truths. Lets all read and become informed citizens prior to the election."

Able, I knew it would happen.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 10, 2004 01:00 PM

d.jokes,

You still have not answered my question. How am I and Wayne bigots? Still waiting for your response, but not holding my breath.

Posted by: David Lowery at September 10, 2004 03:11 PM

Able,

That is a very sad story, I wish that soldier were still alive. What you and most people don't understand is this: when you join the military, you may go to war. He joined of his own freewill, no one made him. It was his choice and his alone. I get sick of these people who join and then say they only wanted an education, to get their school paid for. It is tragic that this young man had to die, I feel very sorry for his family, but they are doing a great service for this country. Thank you brave soldiers for defending freedom from tyrants like Saddam, thank you for keeping the terrorist out of this country. To all of you I say we owe you a great deal of thanks and God bless you!

Posted by: David Lowery at September 10, 2004 04:49 PM

Michael Moore was right. 50% of the nation are a bunch of morons. He did a great job of exposing them. YOU LIBS ARE GOING TO GET BUSH ELECTED!!! Keep up the good work!!! Conservatives don't need to do anything. Every time a lib speaks including Kerry, Bush's numbers go up. Keep doing what you are doing.

Posted by: Chris, OH at September 10, 2004 06:14 PM

BUSH IS SHREWD WHEN IT COMES TO FOOLING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

I do have to admit that GW Bush reacted much quicker in comparison to John Kerry. At least he did in the recent case of the newly discovered documentation regarding his mis-advantures at the end of his service to the Texas National Guard. GW Bush reacted swiftly when new documents came to light that implicated him as refusing to follow direct orders and in taking advantage of his father and family's position in the United States.

On the other hand, I must admit that it took John Kerry longer to react to the swift boat accusations that came out a couple of months ago. John Kerry wouldn't believe that the American people would be gullible enough to buy the spin that the Republicans were putting out and that was a mistake. His good poll readings went down very quickly and when I last looked, they are still down.

GW Bush, on the other hand, reacted very quickly to challenge the authenticity of the newly discovered National Guard documents that gave information regarding his refusal to obey direct orders and take a physical test to qualify for his continued pilot training, etc. Most pilots would never have been allowed to do that but GW Bush was. In any case, it's obvious to me that GW Bush is shrewd when it comes to fooling the American people. I say, give credit where credit is due, I'll give GW Bush that much credit. Now, the question is, will the American people accept being fooled by George W. Bush?

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 10, 2004 09:00 PM

Thank you brave soldiers for defending freedom from tyrants like Saddam, thank you for keeping the terrorist out of this country.

Posted by: David Lowery at September 10, 2004 04:49 PM

David, that's what I mean by bigotry, A bigot is the same as an extremist. You are taking this too far. Sadaam never attacked the U.S., he wasnt' even an immediate threat to the U.S.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 10, 2004 11:38 PM

Oct 9, 2002: "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Senate Speech

This speech was given by John F Kerry.

d.jokes,
What do you have to say about that?

Posted by: Wayne at September 11, 2004 12:18 AM

d. jones,

Just to say hello and that I only wish that we had more "open minded" people reading our POSTs. There is enough information available for everyone to learn about the recklessness of George W. Bush. Can you believe that some readers don't believe that our soldiers ever committed crimes against the villagers in Vietnam? Perhaps they'll change their minds after they see the crimes we have committed against the people of Iraq. Especially at the Abu Ghraib prison. Hey, but I don't blame our military enlisted men, I blame the higher ups in Washington. I blame George W. Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld. However, in my mind, I don't feel it's really Bush's fault, GW Bush just wasn't cut out to be the President of the most powerful country in the world. He still hasn't learned to accept responsibility for anything he does. I don't believe that he ever read about anything about the "THE BUCK STOPS HERE," rule that our Presidents always follow and live by. It's plain for any OPEN MINDED INDIVIDUAL to see that many things have gone entirely wrong for US, e.g., not realizing the difference between fighting the Terrorists and fighting Saddam and Iraq, lying to the American people to convince us that we needed to fight in Iraq, not being able to convince our usual European allies to join us in the illogical fight against Iraq, not preparing for the making of peace in Iraq, not preparing our troops with adequate armor to fight, not preparing for the fall of Saddam Hussein and the looting that took place afterward, not preparing for the Abu Ghraib prisoner scandal, and the list goes on and on. So many things have gone wrong for our country and George W. Bush has yet to find the courage to fire anyone or even apologize to the American people. Can you believe that? I know, it's hard to believe. We really have no choice but to vote for John Kerry and John Edwards. What else are we to do?

For those who insist on "proof," let me just shout, "Open your eyes and minds and see the truth once and for all!"

Your condensed POST follow:

"We are getting a lot of new information now. What's going on? It seems that people are finally coming out and talking some truths. Lets all read and become informed citizens prior to the election."

Able, I knew it would happen.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 10, 2004 01:00 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 11, 2004 12:45 AM

CBS Stands By Bush-Guard Memos
By CBS/AP
CBSNews.com

Friday 10 September 2004

Questions have been raised about the authenticity of newly unearthed memos acquired by CBS News that say President Bush's National Guard commander believed Mr. Bush was shirking his duties.
The network is defending the authenticity of the memos, which were obtained by CBS News' "60 Minutes," saying experts who examined the memos concluded they were authentic documents produced by Mr. Bush's former commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian.

In a statement, CBS News said it stands by its story.

"This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources, interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Colonel Jerry Killian and were well acquainted with his procedures, his character and his thinking," the statement read.

"In addition, the documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content," the statement continued. "Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned."

CBS News Anchor Dan Rather says many of those raising questions about the documents have focused on something called superscript, a key that automatically types a raised "th."

Critics claim typewriters didn't have that ability in the 1970s. But some models did. In fact, other Bush military records already released by the White House itself show the same superscript – including one from 1968.

Some analysts outside CBS say they believe the typeface on these memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s.

But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style says it has been available since 1931.

Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real. But he is concerned about exactly what is being examined by some of the people questioning the documents, because deterioration occurs each time a document is reproduced. And the documents being analyzed outside of CBS have been photocopied, faxed, scanned and downloaded, and are far removed from the documents CBS started with.

Matley did this interview with us prior to Wednesday's "60 Minutes" broadcast. He looked at the documents and the signatures of Col. Killian, comparing known documents with the colonel's signature on the newly discovered ones.

"We look basically at what's called significant or insignificant features to determine whether it's the same person or not," Matley said. "I have no problem identifying them. I would say based on our available handwriting evidence, yes, this is the same person."

Matley finds the signatures to be some of the most compelling evidence.

Reached Friday by satellite, Matley said, "Since it is represented that some of them are definitely his, then we can conclude they are his signatures."

Matley said he's not surprised that questions about the documents have come up.

"I knew going in that this was dynamite one way or the other. And I knew that potentially it could do far more potential damage to me professionally than benefit me," he said. "But we seek the truth. That's what we do. You're supposed to put yourself out, to seek the truth and take what comes from it."

Robert Strong was an administrative officer for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam years. He knew Jerry Killian, the man credited with writing the documents. And paper work, like these documents, was Strong's specialty. He is standing by his judgment that the documents are real.

"They are compatible with the way business was done at that time," Strong said. "They are compatible with the man I remember Jerry Killian being. I don't see anything in the documents that's discordant with what were the times, the situation or the people involved."

Killian died in 1984.

Strong says the highly charged political atmosphere of the National Guard at the time was perfectly represented in the new documents.

"It verged on outright corruption in terms of the favors that were done, the power that was traded. And it was unconscionable from a moral and ethical standpoint. It was unconscionable," Strong said.

The president's service record emerged as an issue during the 2000 race and again this winter. The Killian documents revived the issue of Mr. Bush's time in uniform after weeks in which Democratic challenger John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, has faced questions over his record as a Navy officer and an anti-war protester.

The questions about Mr. Bush's service center on how Mr. Bush got into the Guard and whether he fulfilled his duties during a period from mid-1972 to mid-1973.

What the Killian memos purport to show is that Mr. Bush defied a direct order to appear for a physical exam, that his performance as an officer was lacking in other ways and that Mr. Bush used family connections to try to quash any inquiry into his lapses.

In a separate revelation, the Boston Globe this week reported that Mr. Bush promised to sign up with a Boston-area unit when he left his Texas unit in 1973 to attend Harvard Business School. Mr. Bush never signed up with a Boston unit.

-------

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 11, 2004 01:53 AM

d.jones,
How the hell do you know what anything means, you can't even spell. Now your going to tell us definitions of words?

Posted by: Wayne at September 11, 2004 08:38 AM

I MUST BE DREAMING, PLEASE WAKE ME UP!

The Bush Administration is putting Our Nation at Risk and I'm afraid that about 50 percent of our citizens don't seem to realize it. They need to recognize that George W. Bush is taking our country in a direction where we will surely regret being once we get there. My hope is that the American people will sit back, relax and think twice about where we're going and thoughtfully consider if that's were we really want to go. Remember, there's no returning once we get there. The truth is, we are already past our wake up time. One thing is for sure, our future President is going to be naming many of our next US Supreme Court Justices. Americans must seriously consider if they really want to have George W. Bush doing that. Think about that? Aren't we "Right Wing," enough, yet? Historically, countries have gone through this kind of process before and lived to regret it. Me, I'm 71 years old and I cannot believe what I see happening to my beloved United States of America. I must be dreaming, will somebody please wake me up?

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 11, 2004 09:31 AM

d.,

Your logic is flawed. You make no sense. I praise our troops and I'm a bigot? They are defending freedom, they are making this world safer for freedom!

This is the definition of bigot:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

I can accept your views, can you accept mine?
Whenever someone does not agree with you, you call him or her names. This kind of reminds me of how the Klan acts. I don't care what color creed or religion you are, you can disagree with me, but when you attack me I will do the same to you. I don't judge people on how they look, or what they believe, I judge people on their actions. Your actions have made me realize that you are the bigot, not me. I guess some of that

definition can describe me:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, or politics

But that does not mean that I cannot accept what other people believe. That is what is great about this country, you can believe what you want, you can say what you want, you can do almost what ever you want. God bless america, and God bless you for your point of view, even if I don't agree with you!

Posted by: David Lowery at September 11, 2004 11:23 AM

Able,

Are you too blind to see that Bush as not reacted at all? What his campaine has said is they are not sure if they are true or not, they will let everyone else prove that they are false. Unlike Kerry who got a bunch of layers to defend him and to stop the swifties from saying what they have a legal right to say.

Posted by: David Lowery at September 11, 2004 11:57 AM

Able,
Your last post stated GW reacted quicker that John Kerry. Did it ever occur to you that it is easier to tell the truth and there is no defence for the truth? Bush's accusers aren't even smart enough to use an old typewriter to make those forged documents.

Your too biased and too far up Kerry's a**.

Posted by: Wayne at September 11, 2004 12:00 PM

David Lowery,
Let me just say that the first thing I saw and heard were GW Bush's people saying that the format on the memo and the signature were not authentic. In other words, I heard the denials before I knew what was going on. Unfortunately, John Kerry didn't react for about two whole months. That was definitely a mistake on Kerry's part and his polls went down and are still down. I just hope that he can recover before November 2, 2004. Let me add that I'm still voting for the Kerry/Edwards ticket because of the harm that George W. Bush is doing to our country.

Your condensed POST follows:

"Able, Are you too blind to see that Bush as not reacted at all? What his campaine has said is they are not sure if they are true or not, they will let everyone else prove that they are false. Unlike Kerry who got a bunch of layers to defend him and to stop the swifties from saying what they have a legal right to say."
Posted by: David Lowery at September 11, 2004 11:57 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 11, 2004 02:11 PM

Able,
The only reason your voting for Kerry/ Edwards is they are not Bush/ Cheney?

Posted by: Wayne at September 11, 2004 09:04 PM

As I watch the documentaries this evening, I am amazed that the people on the left have such blind disdain for our Commander in Chief. It saddens me that a protestor was seen kicking one of New York's finest during the Repubilcan Convention. Oh how far we have come. Three years after we were attacked, on the same city streets, the people on the left showed such disrespect. I am comforted that we have a leader who is determined to confront our enemies head on. I think America has shown far too much restraint and I sleep well knowing that the war is being fought overseas. I am grateful to our leaders and our troops and you should be too.

Posted by: Chris, OH and a former New Yorker at September 11, 2004 09:10 PM

Bush Mistake Helps Al-Qaeda Agents Escape by Juan Cole and published by Informed Comment

http://progressivetrail.org/articles/040809Cole.shtml

Neville Dean of PA News reports that a magistrate has given British police only until Tuesday to finish questioning 9 of 13 men arrested August 3 on suspicion of being part of an al-Qaeda cell. The men had been in email correspondence with Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, who since mid-July has been functioning as a double agent for the Pakistani government. He was arrested in Lahore on July 13 and "flipped."

The Bush administration revealed Khan's name to US journalists on Sunday August 1 on background, and it appeared in the US press on Monday. The Bush administration thus effectively outed Khan as a double agent (he sent emails to his London contacts as late as Monday).

The British MI5 was forced to have the London cell of 13 arrested immediately on Tuesday, fearing that they would flee now that they knew Khan had been arrested two weeks earlier. The British do not, however, appear to have finished gathering enough evidence to prosecute the 13 in the courts successfully.

It now turns out, according to Neville, that "Reports last week also claimed that five al Qaida militants were on the run in the UK after escaping capture in last Tuesday?s raids." If this is true, it is likely that the 5 went underground on hearing that Khan was in custody. That is, the loose lips of the Bush administration enabled them to flee arrest.

Of the 13 taken into custody on Aug. 3, two were released for lack of evidence and two others were "no longer being questioned on suspicion of terrorism offences.

Two of the men let go on Sunday are being charged or questioned with regard to irregularities in their identity papers or lapsed visas.

By Tuesday, British police must charge the remaining 9, release them, or ask the magistrate for yet more time for questioning. Terror suspects may be held in the UK for up to two weeks without being charged, in accordance with the Terrorism Act.

One of the 9, Abu Eisa al-Hindi, is a high al-Qaeda official also wanted by the US. Because Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan's identity was prematurely released, however, the British may not have enough evidence to extradite him.

CNN.com noted Monday morning:

" The effort by U.S. officials to justify raising the terror alert level last week may have shut down an important source of information that has already led to a series of al Qaeda arrests, Pakistani intelligence sources have said.

Until U.S. officials leaked the arrest of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan to reporters, Pakistan had been using him in a sting operation to track down al Qaeda operatives around the world, the sources said.

In background briefings with journalists last week, unnamed U.S. government officials said it was the capture of Khan that provided the information that led Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to announce a higher terror alert level . . .

The unnamed U.S. officials leaked Khan's name along with confirmation that most of the surveillance data was three or four years old, arguing that its age was irrelevant because al Qaeda planned attacks so far in advance . . .

Then on Friday, after Khan's name was revealed, government sources told CNN that counterterrorism officials had seen a drop in intercepted communications among suspected terrorists."

Read between the lines, and CNN is suggesting that the outing of Khan has led to greater caution in al-Qaeda and similar groups about using electronic communications, which may make it more difficult to monitor them.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 12, 2004 02:24 AM

David,
It's obvious that George W. Bush himself hasn't added or said anything about his National Guard service in the 70s. That doesn't mean that he is unaware about what's going on. Lets remember that he has a lot of cohorts or cronies, whatever you want to call them, and they are the ones who are reacting. Let me repeat, I heard the reaction before I heard the action or anything about what had happened. Hey, I'm giving George W. Bush some free credit---I'm saying that he acted sooner than John Kerry did when the Republicans started the wild rumors about his medals being "unearned" and about his report to the Senate after he left Vietnam. My point is and has always been that, at least, John Kerry volunteered to fight in Vietnam. He could've done the Bush thing and stayed away from serving but he didn't. My point is that John Kerry is the honorable man and not George W. Bush, who happens to be a cowardly Flip-Flopper on top of being a liar. I don't know what to say about you pro-Bushites except that I know you're blind and not very smart or "understanding." Shame on you too, for that.

Your condensed POST follows:

"Able, Are you too blind to see that Bush as not reacted at all? What his campaine has said is they are not sure if they are true or not, they will let everyone else prove that they are false. Unlike Kerry who got a bunch of layers to defend him and to stop the swifties from saying what they have a legal right to say."
Posted by: David Lowery at September 11, 2004 11:57 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 12, 2004 10:50 AM

This is the definition of bigot:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Thank you David! You hit the nail of the head for the Republican Party BIGOTS. I have searched and searched and didn't find were I called you a bigot, but thanks for the posts anyway.

Vote: KERRY/EDWARDS 2004 WE WILL WIN!

Posted by: d. jones at September 12, 2004 06:27 PM

Check out this poll from the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/polltrend_090804.html

Inspite of what you might read in these posts, John Kerry is dropping, sometimes dramtically, in virtually every question while George Bush is increasing. As more and more people view the record, more and more people seem to be leaning towards a Bush victory in November. Looking forward to the debates!!!

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 13, 2004 08:03 AM

d.,

You could say the same thing about yourself.
You favor people in your own group, I.E. Liberals, over those from another group. The difference between you and I is that I am more open minded to what you have to say. I don't call you an idiot when you say something I don't agree with. You on the other hand will use every opportunity to insult whoever doesn't agree with you. If you want proof, just look back at all your hate filled posts.

God bless America and
God bless George Bush!
And yes God bless you too d. and Able.

Posted by: David Lowery at September 13, 2004 08:52 AM

A post by able.

David,
It's obvious that George W. Bush himself hasn't added or said anything about his National Guard service in the 70s. That doesn't mean that he is unaware about what's going on. Lets remember that he has a lot of cohorts or cronies, whatever you want to call them, and they are the ones who are reacting. Let me repeat, I heard the reaction before I heard the action or anything about what had happened. Hey, I'm giving George W. Bush some free credit---I'm saying that he acted sooner than John Kerry did when the Republicans started the wild rumors about his medals being "unearned" and about his report to the Senate after he left Vietnam. My point is and has always been that, at least, John Kerry volunteered to fight in Vietnam. He could've done the Bush thing and stayed away from serving but he didn't. My point is that John Kerry is the honorable man and not George W. Bush, who happens to be a cowardly Flip-Flopper on top of being a liar. I don't know what to say about you pro-Bushites except that I know you're blind and not very smart or "understanding." Shame on you too, for that.

I still have not heard the Bush Campain say anthing other then we are not sure if these documents are real or not. The news media will get the truth out. (Although I find it hard to believe that they would try and prove something for Bush.) The fact is that CBS made a big mistake and they know it. I give this maybe two more days and it is forgotten.

Posted by: David Lowery at September 13, 2004 08:55 AM

Posted by d.

Thank you brave soldiers for defending freedom from tyrants like Saddam, thank you for keeping the terrorist out of this country.

Posted by: David Lowery at September 10, 2004 04:49 PM

David, that's what I mean by bigotry, A bigot is the same as an extremist. You are taking this too far. Sadaam never attacked the U.S., he wasnt' even an immediate threat to the U.S.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

When did I ever say that Saddam ever attacked the U.S.? What I said was "Thank you brave soldiers for defending freedom from tyrants like Saddam".
Where in your right mind do you get I said that Saddam attacked us. Oh that's right, your not in your right mind!!

God bless our Troops
God bless our President
God bless America
and God bless you d. Maybe he can open your eyes to what jfk will do to this country if elected.

Posted by: David Lowery at September 13, 2004 09:51 AM

David, you people can say what you want about Senator John Kerry. That is who I am going to vote for because I feel America can do better. It just that simple. No name calling, and no praise for GW for his mistakes.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 13, 2004 07:59 PM

Now GW JR (The Dummy) wants the U.N. to get involved! Well Hell, just go over and bomb them at least the do have real ties to Al-Qaeda. MORAN!!

U.S. Wants Iran to Go Before U.N. Council

September 13, 2004 10:54 PM EDT

VIENNA, Austria - Buoyed by growing European support, the United States lobbied the U.N. atomic watchdog agency Monday to send Iran before the U.N. Security Council for refusing to freeze work that can produce nuclear weapons.

A European diplomat said Washington had revised a resolution originally drafted by France, Germany and Britain, adding an Oct. 31 deadline and toughening language meant to force Iran to dispel all suspicions it is trying to make nuclear arms in violation of treaty commitments.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 14, 2004 03:08 AM

Oh Yea, We are Winning The War On Iraq! Iraqis Can't Even Go Home! GW JR is the biggest Dummy!

Iraqis Plead With U.S. to Return to City

September 13, 2004 10:57 PM EDT

ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF TAL AFAR - U.S. troops barred anguished crowds from returning to their homes in the besieged city of Tal Afar on Monday as residents described corpses scattered across orchards and the collapse of essential services such as water and electricity.

American troops and Iraqi forces on Sunday overran Tal Afar, one of several Iraqi cities they say had fallen into the hands of insurgents, after a nearly two-week siege that forced scores of residents to flee and left a trail of devastated buildings and rubble.
Crowds of men desperate to learn the fate of their loved ones and check on their homes pleaded with American troops manning a checkpoint on the city's outskirts to let them through. But soldiers only stepped aside for a few medical relief workers and regional officials.

"It's for their own safety," 1st Lt. Neal Erickson of Task Force Olympia, which controls the area, said at the checkpoint

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 14, 2004 03:13 AM

How can you blame Bush for these terrorist actions? We are the ones trying to protect the Iraqi citizens, but no, d. has to turn it around and make it look like it's all the Americans fault. This is not going to work, and it is not working according to the polls, your spin is a waste of time.

God bless our troops.
God bless America.
God bless GWB.
and God bless you d. for your point of view.

Posted by: David Lowery at September 14, 2004 10:22 AM

d.,

How fast you forget, when it is in your best interest. We went to the UN and the UN did nothing. Why? because the UN was on saddams payroll. Food for oil, yea right!

If you remember there were UN sanctions on Iraq for I think 15 years and the only people it was hurting were the Iraqi people, not saddam because he was getting money and support from the UN, Frace, and Russia. We will try it again with Iran, but I doubt it will do any good, because Iran can just buy the UN again.

Posted by: David Lowery at September 14, 2004 11:50 AM

money and support from the UN, Frace, and Russia. We will try it again with Iran, but I doubt it will do any good, because Iran can just buy the UN again.

Posted by: David Lowery at September 14, 2004 11:50 AM

Oh Really!, Then Let's Blow up Iran, and Oust it's leader. If YOU are so sure it wont do any good, then send GW JR a Letter Telling him not to try, and also tell THE DUMMY, his next course of action to take. He could use your a help a lot more than any of US could.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 14, 2004 12:54 PM

Why is the Bush Administration the most secretive we have ever had in the History of the United States?

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/appeal_for_truth_telling.php

Twelve Examples of Existing Documents That Deserve Unauthorized Disclosure

Each of these—wrongly withheld up till now--could and should be released almost in their entirety, perhaps with minor deletions for genuine security reasons. (In many cases, official promises to release declassified versions have not been honored.)

1. Reports by International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on Guantanamo, Abu Ghrab and other prisons (ships, prisons in other countries) that hold prisoners from the “war on terrorism”. (These reports have been provided to the US government but have not been made
public.)

2. 28 pages redacted from the report of the Joint House-Senate Inquiry on Intelligence Activities before and after 9/11, concerning the ties between the 9/11 terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia.

3. 800 pages of the United Nations Report on Weapons of Mass Destruction that were taken by the United States during unauthorized Xeroxing and never given to the Security Council members. (The original report was 1200 pages in length but has never been published in its entirety)

4. Membership, advisors, consultants to Vice President Cheney’s Energy Task Force, and any minutes from meetings (January – December, 2001).

5. Documents and photographs concerning/produced by military doctors or medical personnel that document abuses toward prisoners condoned by medical personnel.

6. Documents produced by military lawyers and legal staff that challenge the political policy makers decision to undercut the Geneva Conventions and any other extra-legal procedures.

7. The missing sections of the US Army General Taguba report on prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan.

8. Department of Justice-Inspector General (DOJ-IG) Report: RE: Sibel Edmonds vs. FBI, completed, classified

9. DOJ-IG Report: RE: FBI Translation Department (security breaches, intentional mistranslations, espionage charges), completed, classified

10. DOJ-IG Report: RE:FBI & Foreknowledge of 9/11, completed, classified

11. Full staff backup to General Shinseki’s 2002 estimate that “several hundred thousand troops” would be required for effective occupation of Iraq.

12. The full 2002 State Department studies on requirements for the postwar occupation and restoration of civil government in Iraq.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 14, 2004 02:49 PM

Post by d.

Oh Really!, Then Let's Blow up Iran, and Oust it's leader. If YOU are so sure it wont do any good, then send GW JR a Letter Telling him not to try, and also tell THE DUMMY, his next course of action to take. He could use your a help a lot more than any of US could.

What you still fail to see is that we gave saddam every chance to do what he was suppose to do, only after several years of sanctions did we finally do something. I think we waited too long, look how his people suffered. As for Iran, I think we can give them every chance to do the right thing, if after several attempts of diplomatic negotiations, then we may have to show them the errors of their ways. But we have to give peace a chance, don't you think so?

P.S. Very good no spelling errors, way to go!

Posted by: David Lowery at September 14, 2004 04:33 PM

Note to G.W. Bush

why are we attacking "insurgents" on their native soil and spending billions of dollars to rebuild THEIR country, and not spending money on security devices like radioactive scanners to be used on EVERY container and EVERY truck that enters our country?

Why are we using our National Guard overseas instead of watching and protecting our borders?

We go through all the security checks in our airports even so far as to having our shoes scanned! Have we caught anybody with a thermonuclear device in their shoes?

The BIG threat as we all know is giving these homocidal maniacs the opportunity to destroy us through our inaction or our stupidity.

The attack on 9/11 was brilliantly executed, yet quite simple to accomplish. They exploited our security weaknesses. We are not dealing with dummies here! THE THREAT IS REAL! THE EXPOSURE IS REAL! AND SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT IT!

Posted by: Tony Campanile at September 14, 2004 08:48 PM

I just saw a CNN interview with Ms. Kitty Kelly in cable channel 35 and she sounded pretty convincing to me. It's no wonder that the Republicans are now out demonetizing and trying to kill the messenger again. They keep doing it with every author who has criticized George W. Bush and many new books are coming out. It seems that many of the new authors were Republicans and prior friends of the Bush family. I wonder why they all have started telling the truth that could hurt George W. Bush's presidential election all of a sudden? Perhaps these authors are thinking that GW Bush may still be able to fool the American people into electing him as President. They may be afraid of that happening too.

In my part of the world, "letters to the editor" by the GW Bush people are warning Catholics, that they cannot in good conscience, vote for John Kerry because he supports abortions. I know that John Kerry supports "Choice," just like I do and he has already stated that he doesn't himself believe in abortions, so the Republicans are even lying about that. Catholics may vote for John Kerry in good conscience.

Boy, these pro-Bushites do lie about everything. For those who are interested, Kitty talked about GW Bush during his "pre Born-Again year" days when he used to drink, smoke pot and do cocaine. Apparently, he was a drunkard too but he never struck or physically abused Laura although he may have verbally abused her. Kitty says that many witnesses testified to help her write her true story. Why all this is important, I don't know.

Let me remind everyone that George W. Bush was "Re-Born" when he was 48 years of age. I didn't know that before. Now, as far as anyone can tell, he's a good Christian. The only reason that I'm voting against him is due to his incompetence, failures, and recklessness. Let me add that I don't like his deficit spending either. He's going to break our country if we allow him to stay for another four years.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 15, 2004 12:31 AM

Chris, OH
Yes, we tell the truth like Michael Moore who was quickly demonized by the Republicans and sometimes the American people aren't quite ready to deal with the truth.

Abraham Lincoln said it best,

"You can fool all the people, some of the time. You can fool some of the people, all the time. But you cannot fool all of the people, all of the time."

You may be right--George W. Bush may win. The American people are soverign and we'll accept whatever they determine as long as the election is not stolen from them again, like it was in 2,000. Let me add to that, the 2,000 elction was not stolen from Al Gore, it was stolen from the American people. Hopefully, the Republicans will not try to do that again but we'll be ready to fight this time, if they do.

We'll find out in 49 more days, won't we?
We'll find out if the American people can be fooled again by George W. Bush. We hope not.

Your condensed POST follows:

"Michael Moore was right. 50% of the nation are a bunch of morons. He did a great job of exposing them. YOU LIBS ARE GOING TO GET BUSH ELECTED!!! Keep up the good work!!! Conservatives don't need to do anything. Every time a lib speaks including Kerry, Bush's numbers go up. Keep doing what you are doing."
Posted by: Chris, OH at September 10, 2004 06:14 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 15, 2004 12:58 AM

Posted by Tony Campanile

why are we attacking "insurgents" on their native soil and spending billions of dollars to rebuild THEIR country, and not spending money on security devices like radioactive scanners to be used on EVERY container and EVERY truck that enters our country?

Tony,

Because most of the "insurgents" are not on their native soil, meaning to say that most of them are from outside of Iraq. What you and most of the liberals don't seem or want to realize is that most Iraqi people want these guy's gone. We are there to make Iraq a democratic country. The "insurgents" are there to keep it a dictatorship where women are oppressed, girls can't go to school, and that all ideas of freedom are squashed. These are the reasons we are there. You are buying into what jfk and all his cronies are selling you. Our boarders are more protected now, we have better security in airports. This kind of security will not happen over night, it will take years to implement. I do believe the President could have gotten a better start on it, don't think for one second I am giving the President a free pass. He will get the job done, of that I am sure.

Posted by: David Lowery at September 15, 2004 11:08 AM

Bush wasn't just wrong about waging war in Iraq, he was misleading. He hasn't just lost jobs, he hasn't been straight about it.

"His is the excuse presidency," Kerry said Wednesday as he tried to make the economy a character issue. "Never wrong, never responsible, never to blame."

EDITOR'S NOTE - Ron Fournier has covered national politics or the White House since 1993.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 15, 2004 04:01 PM

To David

Regarding "insurgents" - yes they are NOT democratic, women do not have the same rights as men, this may be wrong in OUR current viewpoint, but not all cultures are like ours. In fact, our culture is always changing, not more than 100 years ago it was legal to own a human being; denying them the civil rights that our constitution holds for all. It's been less than 100 years since women got to vote! 75 years ago women were a miniscule part of our work force getting only menial jobs for practically no pay.

But for 200 years it has been OUR country without any foreign power meddling with our affairs trying to tell us how to lead our lives. We would not tolerate it, how can we expect the Iraqi's to?

The arabic culture is thousands of years old. It works for them, we have no business telling them what to do, they dont know how to be democratic, and they laugh at our style of democracy, or fear it.

To deny that we are anything other than an occupying army is the height of arrogance. We "Liberated" the Iraqis a year ago. It's time for the Iraqi's to take charge of their own destiny.

You say that most Iraqi people want these (bad) guys gone. I am sure they do, so what the Iraqi's need to do is to take up arms and fight them, not Americans. Unfortunately, every time an American kills an innocent mother, brother, sister or child, every member of the family is going to want revenge. You can't expect hugs and kisses and thanks from any of these people. They might have looked at the Americans favorably before, but we have over extended our welcome.

What about Osama Bin Laden? We will not find him on our patrols in the streets of Iraq.

You say our borders are more protected now - how can you say that when thousands of containers pass straight through our docks without any inspection at all? All it's going to take is ONE dirty container to get through and into the hands of the "insurgents" on our soil and we will be in deep trouble. What has the Bush administration done about this problem? NOTHING! The only one who has even addressed it was John Kerry. HE will get the job done, of that I am sure.

Posted by: Tony Campanile at September 15, 2004 08:41 PM

Abel,

With all due respect. You missed my point so I will state it clearly. Those who watch 15 minutes of CNN, listen to Michael Moore or form an opinion on a 30 second blurp bashing our Commander in Chief are being irresponsible.

The election was not stolen in 2000. This also is an irresponsble statement and gives our enemies more resolve. Bush is not incompetent and I resent what you are implying. Just because you disagree with his policies you slander. 50% OF THE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES THINKS HE IS DOING A BETTER THAN AVERAGE JOB. Is it any coincidence that most of those same 50% are for accountability, integrity, traditional marriage, protection of innocent life, being responsible.

With all of the false accusatations, the liberal pounding, personal attacks, adversity faced over the last four years, don't you wonder why Kerry can't close the deal? I'll tell you why. Because his supporters are well informed and understand why this country is in the position it is in. The President is not your saviour!!!! He is supposed to do what he can to keep us safe and provide an atmosphere where we can have opportunites for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He is accomplishing that task. He cannot be blamed for those who squander that opportunity and trade it for an obvious pity party because there candidate did not get in 2000. And please don't wear out that the election was stolen. Gore did not want all of the votes counted, especially the military.

Lastly, I have friends who left the military in the 90's because it was being mismanaged. Bush is privy to information that you are not. Kerry was privy but chose not to attend those meetings. Please don't tell me he is the right man to lead our military. Being a great athelete does not equate to being a great coach or manager. Kerry is far from a positive example for our young men and women in the military.

Tony,

The Arabic culture works for them and that is fine until they start slaughtering innocent Americans in the name of Allah. I have a problem with that!!!!! The same people who are complaining about our involvement now were complaining a a few years ago about the mistreatment of the women in Afghanistan. Look, Bush had to defend this country and he enforced the U.N. Resolution which they wouldn't do because they were in bed with Saddam. I'm not happy we are involved in that mess, but I don't see how we could have let Saddam continue to thumb his nose up to the whole world while he continued to rape, torture and kill his own population. You people would have been the same ones complaining when we were forced to worship Allah and eat falafel. Then you would say he did not do enough. You people need to keep talking. Everytime you bash Bush he gains another supporter.

Posted by: Chris, OH at September 15, 2004 11:15 PM

Posted by: Chris, OH at September 10, 2004 06:14 PM

"Michael Moore was right. 50% of the nation are a bunch of morons."

Chris, Who are YOU calling a MORON! I thought you were hanging out with the AMISH in Ohio. Remember they love Boo!-SH because they have no utilities and telephone bills to pay. Do like Heart Attach Heney with a C. Go back to your hole! You are worthless to America.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 16, 2004 01:03 AM

Abel,

George's Bush's convertion to Christiantity was a major issue of the 2000 election. The Dems tried very hard to use it against him. I'm surprised that you didn't know this before, since you seem to know so much about the 2000 election.

You believe, from what I can tell that you will not vote for George Bush because of his record as a president and seem to reject the things he says in his campaign for re-election. However, you also seem to be voting for John Kerry based on his promises but not on his actually record of voting as a Senator. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I have learned to respect your views even if I often disagree with them. I don't want to be confused about where you stand. Your previous post sounded like you said you were voting against George Bush which isn't the same thing as voting for John Kerry. (you said-The only reason that I'm voting against him is due to his incompetence, failures, and recklessness. Let me add that I don't like his deficit spending either. He's going to break our country if we allow him to stay for another four years.)

After investigating Kerry's voting record do you really think that he won't raise taxes, will support our troops, protect social security and do everything he can to pre-emptively protect America before another attack is made on our soil. That's not what I get from his voting record.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 16, 2004 01:55 AM

Tony,

Because most of the "insurgents" are not on their native soil, meaning to say that most of them are from outside of Iraq.

Posted by: David Lowery at September 15, 2004 11:08 AM

David, you JUST SCREWED UP! If most of the insurgents are outside of Iraq, Then why in the Hell did GW JR (The Dummy) Attack Iraq from the beginning????? Please tell me!!!!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 16, 2004 02:21 AM

Able,
Of course Kitty Kelley sounded convincing to you, that's what you want to hear.

d.jones,
Stop plagerizing everything you put on this blog.

Posted by: Wayne at September 16, 2004 08:16 AM

Ok, Mr. Campanile

I stand by my statements about Iraq, the Iraqi people are happy we are there, do a goggle search of Iraq blogs, you will see what I'm talking about. As far as our boarders, tell me what could we do differently? How would jfk handle it? Would it be any different then what the President is doing right now?

Posted by: David Lowery at September 16, 2004 08:49 AM

David didn't screw up, your misquoting him. Many of the insurgents that are making the life of the Iraqi people a living hell have come to Iraq to wage their long-awaited war against the United States. They aren't fighting for Iraq, they are fighting against the United States. We toppled Suddam and his regime and if the terrorists hadn't grouped together from the all over the middle east to fight the war, it would be over. Suddam had made Iraq a sanctuary for terrorism, by removing Suddam, we hurt their ability to hide in Iraq so they could regroup, plan and then strike out. The people in Iraq were liberated and then the flood of terrorists groups from the Palestinians, Pakistan, Iran and elsewhere came to Iraq to restablish a rule by dictatorship for a people who wanted peace and democracy.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 16, 2004 12:50 PM

"Do like Heart Attach Heney with a C. Go back to your hole! You are worthless to America."

Posted by: d. jones at September 16, 2004 01:03 AM

Abel, JM, other Pathetic liberals:

Would you consider D. Jones a spokesperson for the Democratic party? Would you consider his statement above as what the democratic party (the party for the people) truly believes? Is this the message that you're wanting to get across to people? I find it absolutely unbelievable that you will not denounce such statements. This is a medical condition, and not only that.. a life threatening condition. You all make comments about Bush not living up to the compassion he calls upon... D. Jones, you should be completely ashamed of yourself. However, most people here probably find what you say to be hard to believe anyways and are probably questioning whether cheney has a medical condition like you stated. This, people, is one time that D. Jones is not lying... I can assure of of that. He's showing his true self, and exactly what the democratic party represents. Bill Clinton was in 'serious' condition a few weeks back, did you notice not a single bad comment was made about him by one of us "Pro-Bushites"? Did you notice that when you came on here crying about hurting your neck or back when one of John Kerry's flip-flops blindsided you, not a single person said anything bad about it, and as a matter of fact.. you recieved get well wishes from a few of us. D. Jones, you are the lowest form of human life.... And you unless Abel, JM, and all the other pathetic Liberals can prove me wrong... You are truly a Democrats hero.

Posted by: Conservatism at September 16, 2004 12:52 PM

d.,

Now who is nitpicking? Of course there were terrorist in Iraq before we ousted Saddam, now that we are there a lot of terrorist are going to Iraq to try and stop freedom. Why are you so against freedom? Why are you trying to stop the progress of democracy? Answer me this please d.

P.S. Before you say "How dare you compare me with the terrorist" I'm not, but you seem to not want to help the Iraqi people achieve democracy.

God bless America
God bless our Troops
God bless PRESIDENT BUSH
and God bless you d.

Posted by: David Lowery at September 16, 2004 04:07 PM

Able, your comment,

Yes, we tell the truth like Michael Moore who was quickly demonized by the Republicans and sometimes the American people aren't quite ready to deal with the truth.

Most of what Michael Moore stated in his so-called documentary has been proven lies. We have done the same thing with the garbage that d. post here. I respect your views, but I can't respect telling lies to defame a great man, President Bush.

Posted by: David Lowery at September 16, 2004 04:14 PM

Chris OH

The Arabic (Islamic) culture I am referring to is not the minority of extremists who are involved in Jihad against ALL infidels, Russians, Americans, Italians, Spaniards, etc.

These extremists were not totally concentrated in Iraq. They are also in Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia to name a few. Should we overthrow all of these nations as well?

A few days ago it was reported that dozens of Iraqis were killed by a car bomb when they were trying to enlist in the police force. There are undoubtably many Iraqis who want to achieve change and are willing to put their lives on the line to remove the extremists from their native soil. I believe that the Iraqis' will eventually be able to do a better job kicking the bad guys out than us. Our war against these extremists will be extremely difficult to achieve without the cooperation of the GOOD Muslims.

We need to do everything in our power to help them achieve these goals but without stipulating what form of government they must have. We need to be more open minded in this respect. Many of our allies are Monarchies, some Theocracies; both work in the Muslim culture. The only stipulation that we should insist on is that the government be cooperative with us and our allies.

Unfortunately, our occupation of Iraq and accidental killing of thousands of innocents is turning even the good muslims against us. You can't blame them. I said before - we have overstayed our welcome. There should be a better way to deal with this situation but our current leadership still has not figured it out. G.W. Bush is not the most diplomatic President we ever had.

To those who consider the way women are treated by this culture as wrong - Maybe we should force them to adopt our ways - take the veils off of all their women and put them into miniskirts. How about we open liquor stores on every street and topless dancers in every town? Let's hold up "role models" like Britney Spears and Madonna as good examples of how their daughters should behave? Tell me - Which culture is truly on the moral high ground?

Some of what we represent as a culture is definitely NOT a shining example of what they should aspire to. America in 2004 is NOT the America of 1944 who the world looked upon as good, decent people who gave their lives to liberate countries who had been conquered by tyrannical despots. We've changed, and not all for the better. Situations like the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib was unthinkable 60 years ago.

Don't tell me the Iraqi people are happy we are there.

Posted by: Tony Campanile at September 16, 2004 08:55 PM

David Lowery

Who knows how JFK would have handled it? He's been dead for 40 years, But I am sure that JFK's Diplomatic skill was far better than GWB's. Gotta hand it JFK though - he could give great speeches, and his handling of the press was legendary. How do you think George Bush would have handled Marilyn Monroe?

Posted by: Tony Campanile at September 16, 2004 09:01 PM

Who wants to laugh at Tony Campanile first? hahahahah.... jfk = John F. Kerry.......

Posted by: Conservatism at September 16, 2004 10:00 PM

Tony,

The extremists you talk about, the so the called minority were not condemed by the Muslim population for the attacks on innocent life. Yes there are peace loving Muslims, however the religion by ideology is dangerous. It preaches to convert by whatever means necessary.

I was not the one complaining about Afghan women being treated poorly it was the liberals that were complaining. I agree our culture has strayed from traditional values and that is our problem. Don't tell me that they are morally superior, because they believe that when they die they will get 72 virgins. Oh and by the way keeping the women down is not the answer either. The same guys that died for Allah by killing innocent Americans were spending time in strip clubs in Florida. So noone has a market on morality except God himself.

You are ignoring the fact that the whole world was in agreement that Sadaam was a problem. Bush enforced the U.N. Resolution. ie: He held Sadaam accountable. No we don't need everyone to have a form of government exactly like us but each country that becomes a national security threat needs to be handled diffently. We need to understand that we do not have the level of security clearance that our officials do.

First of all Abu Grhaib was a place of torture long before we showed up. What our few soldiers did might have been wrong however it was like Disneyland compared to what Uday would have done after we defeated them. Most of the soldiers coming home feel that the Iraqis are grateful. Problem is we only hear the bad stuff.

We are not perfect. Lord knows the U.S. has in most cases strayed from biblical values. But do not forget we are also the most compassionate and generous nation in the world.

My hunch is Bush did not want this. Everyone knew it would be ugly, but I am grateful they are fighting on their soil and not ours. Remember 9/11. It is still clear in my memeory. I had family fighting to get out the city that day.

One more point war is not pretty but it is necessary. You think what we are doing now is unthinkable. You have a short memory. World War II ring a bell. My grandfather volunteered as a 17 year old and used his brothers papers to go fight the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. He was in a little tangle called Iwo Jima. Meanwhile back here Japanese Americans were being forced to live in camps. War is not pretty but sometimes it is necessary. Let me know when you or any other of the Monday morning QB's have the security clearance to question our motives.

Hey D.

I did not call you a moron. I am just finding common ground with Michael Moore, half the country does not get it. I am just saying it is your half. I am just interpreting his sentiment. You proved my point everytime you call us worthless, everytime you try to insult us you prove my point. Remember It was Hollywood and Michael Moore that insulted the conservatives. I am just using their words. Keep up the good work. You are our best secret weapon next to Dan Rather.

Posted by: Chris, OH at September 16, 2004 10:26 PM

Posted by: Tony Campanile at September 16, 2004 09:01 PM

Who knows how JFK would have handled it? He's been dead for 40 years

HAHAHAHA!! LOL!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 16, 2004 10:44 PM

Tony Campanile,
I think David Lowery was speaking of John F Kerry(JFK), you know like John Kerry and John Edwards? John John? Another JFK reference that the average American idiot wouldn't recognize but subconsciously would think that these two guys would be the next best thing to sliced bread? I have to admit, they almost had me. NOT!

Posted by: Wayne at September 16, 2004 11:09 PM

Posted by: David Lowery at September 16, 2004 04:07 PM

P.S. Before you say "How dare you compare me with the terrorist" I'm not, but you seem to not want to help the Iraqi people achieve democracy.

David, I am much more Pro-America than I am Pro-Iraq. Why do you want American to become a third world country with a Dictator? I would help any American before I would any foreigner, especially someone from the Middle East. I simply couldn't trust them. If our Country is taken over by foreign militants. I would trust you over someone from Iraq.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004 We Want A Different Direction For America.

Posted by: d. jones at September 17, 2004 02:50 AM

Jim Rodkey,
You are correct, I will not vote for George W. Bush because I already know enough about him. I knew that he had been "ReBorn" but I didn't know how old he was when he was "Born Again." However, I don't need to know all the new stuff about him, like him lying to the American people. He has always lied, That's nothing new. Like when he claimed that he didn't tell us about being jailed for DUI because he didn't want to hurt his twin daughters. That was a lie!

I wasn't surprised when he lied to get us involved in Iraq. Look, he said we were in imminent danger from Saddam and Iraq--I knew that was a lie. He said he wanted to get rid of the Iraq's WMDs--they're were never there. He said he wanted to get rid of Saddam--we have him in jail. He could declare that we won the war tomorrow and bring our troops home if he wanted to. He could stop all these killings of men, women and children that we are committing because of our bombings, etc., in Iraq. We really have no business being in Iraq and we never did. What else does George W. Bush want?

Iraq's oil is not ours and nothing we say or do will make it ours. Those poor Iraqis are bombing and destroying their own oil rather than have us sell it or use it. Eventually we are going to have to pay for all this. Yes, it's way past time that George W. Bush stopped lying to the American people! And you need this--one more time now--you need to learn that Iraq and Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with the Terrorist strikes in New York City and Washington, DC. That was George W. Bush's lie too! Frankly, Saddam Hussein doesn't even resemble Ossama bin Laden? By the way, you also say that the Democrats tried "very hard" to use George's Bush's convertion to Christianity as a major issue against him during the 2000 election. That's not true, where did you get that?

Your condensed POST follows:

"Abel, George's Bush's convertion to Christiantity was a major issue of the 2000 election. The Dems tried very hard to use it against him. I'm surprised that you didn't know this before, since you seem to know so much about the 2000 election.
You believe, from what I can tell that you will not vote for George Bush because of his record as a president and seem to reject the things he says in his campaign for re-election. However, you also seem to be voting for John Kerry based on his promises but not on his actually record of voting as a Senator. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I have learned to respect your views even if I often disagree with them. I don't want to be confused about where you stand. Your previous post sounded like you said you were voting against George Bush which isn't the same thing as voting for John Kerry. (you said-The only reason that I'm voting against him is due to his incompetence, failures, and recklessness. Let me add that I don't like his deficit spending either. He's going to break our country if we allow him to stay for another four years.)
After investigating Kerry's voting record do you really think that he won't raise taxes, will support our troops, protect social security and do everything he can to pre-emptively protect America before another attack is made on our soil. That's not what I get from his voting record."
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 16, 2004 01:55 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 17, 2004 08:13 AM

Tony,

You are starting to sound like d. The jfk I was referring to in none other the Kerry. The JFK you were referring to is a man that I can respect, he had the courage to stand up to Russia and Cuba, I doubt that your man kerry would have done the same. He is weak on defense and protecting this country from terrorist. Please don't start sounding like d. it will make you lose all credibility.

Posted by: David Lowery at September 17, 2004 08:35 AM

Abel,

George Bush comment during a debate that his favorite philosopher "was his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!" drew mocking scorn from the liberal left. Many (not all) of them disdain religious expression and an issue was made of seperation of church and state and that George Bush would be a puppet to the religious right under the leadership of Ralph Reed.

How many reports have to be released that tell us that the whole world thought Iraq had WMD's and that the inteeligence gathering communites of the world, not just the CIA, was saying the same thing. Yesterday's report from the Intelligence Committee was jumped on by Kerry as evidence that we are doing poorly in Iraq. Are we supposed to forget that this is the same committee that also reported WMD'S in Iraq. They sound a little like David Kay who was telling everybody about the stockpiles and the chemical factories on the news and then after 9/11 was criticizing Bush for taking him at his word.

Oil prices dropped on Tuesday as off shore oil riggin in the Gulf of Mexico stepped up drilling and production of oil. Liberal environmentalists want too much and expect us to trust them with little evidence of damaging impact but the war has allowed us to step up production of in the United States. There is no evidence that this was a war to control the oil fields. There is evidence that the allies the Kerry camp wants America to embrace were using oil for political purposes as the UN is doing everything it can to stonewall the Oil For Food investigations.

I've never said that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11. What I have said and what many other's have said is that Saddam provided a safe haven for terrorism and terorist activity. That Suddam himself was a terrorist and that the war, as George Bush said at the beginning was an attempt to stop the spread of terrorism in the world, demonstrates that many Americans only hear what they want to hear. Just because there was no connection to 9/11 doesn't mean there was no connection to terrorists as the 9/11 commission rightly reported.

Can you find one direct quote from George Bush where he connected Saddam to 9/11? Some republicans have alleged this but I don't recall Bush saying anything other than Suddam's ties to terrorist activities. As the 9/11 commission reported there are indirect ties to the attack but nothing direct. Without securing the peace in Iraq, the safe haven of sanctuary for terrorism would have continued and they would have allowed the build up that would have lead to other terrorist attacks.

Bush did say Saddam was a immenent threat. I believe he was. He was certainly a threat to the people of Iraq, he was a threat to Israel. He was a threat to other parts of the world. Terrorist activity in the world right now is directly associated with groups that Saddam offered financial support and protection in his borders and they are still fighting to maintain Iraq as a safe haven for terrorist activity.

Watch War Stories with Ollie North on Sunday night on Fox News. You might not like or agree with Ollie but he's going to be in Iraq interviewing the soldiers in Iraq. Listen to what they have to say about the war instead of all the arm chair observers who are writing books and going on the news and yet do not have the first clue about what it means to serve in the military. Last Night Juan Williams argued about military protocol with a man who served. Apparently Juan, who never served knows more about the military than those who did.

Like it ot not, There is no isolationism any more. It's a global economy and that means that anything that stabilizes other countries is beneficial to America and all countries. We have to get out of the mindset of America of 30 years ago and understand that we are a part of the world and that we have an accountability to the world. That's humane. The posts (not by Abel) that think we need to seal the borders, bring the troops home and only worry about America is foolish. It also very dangerous. Most of all it's an ignorance of the history of the world because that ideology was part of the downfall of many of the great civilizations.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 17, 2004 11:32 AM

"Why do you want American to.. [have] a Dictator?"

Posted by: d. jones at September 17, 2004 02:50 AM

"...the 22nd amendment should be modified." Bill Clinton (May 30th 2003)

Posted by: Conservatism at September 17, 2004 01:35 PM

"Look, he said we were in imminent danger from Saddam and Iraq--I knew that was a lie."

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 17, 2004 08:13 AM

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." Bill Clinton

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtlessly using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…"
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …"
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23,2003

"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East." John Kerry Feb. 13th 1998

"...where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity, but in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq....It was disappointing a month ago not to have the French and the Russians understanding that they shouldn't give any signals of weakening on the sanctions and I think those signals would have helped bring about this crisis because they permitted Saddam Hussein to interpret that maybe the moment was right for him to make this challenge." John Kerry Nov 12th 1997 (after russia and france were against a UN resolution against saddam)

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to Clinton, signed by John Kerry.

"If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." John Kerry Sept. 6th 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." John Kerry October 9th 2002

"The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest" October 9th 2002

"Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution." John Kerry October 9th 2002

"I don’t think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We’re not going to cut and run and not do the job." John Kerry Sept. 14, 2003 (just days before voting becoming the 'anyone in congress who is going to not give our troops ammunition')

"I don’t think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to – to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That’s irresponsible." John Kerry Sept. 14, 2003 (just days before before abandoning our troops...)

"Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that..." John Kerry December 15th 2003

"I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage. And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people." Sen. John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 13. 2003

Abel,

When you heard Bush saying that we were in danger, Saddam had WMD, and it was an imminent threat... you knew it was a lie, right? What did you think when Madeline Albright, John Edwards, Bob Graham, Carl Levin, Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, Robert Byrd, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Tom Dacshle, Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockafeller, Hillary Clinton, Henry Waxman, and your man John Kerry all said the same things, at the same time, and even years ahead of George W. Bush? I'm sure it wasn't lie when they said it was it?

I've said it all along, and I'm goin to say it again. If you want to debate the issues, lets get to it. But don't throw out opinions on who lied unless you want the cold hard truth, and the truth is that if Bush lied, then all of your liberal buddies taught him how to do it years ago. I can agree with either situation. We can call them all liars, or we can say the intelligence was faulty. But do NOT sit there and tell me or anyone else that essentially the same comments about WMD are lies from 1 person, and gospel from another.

Posted by: Conservatism at September 17, 2004 02:23 PM

Jim Rodkey,
I don't have to find a direct quote from George W. Bush, I heard him myself. He repeatedly said that Saddam Hussein presented an imminant danger to us and that we had no choice but to take him out. Didn't you hear him? Where were you? On top of that, George W. Bush consistently talked about Saddam Hussein in a manner that described him as being responsible for the Twin Tower attacks in NYC and the Pentagon attack in Washington, DC. George W. Bush was making up lies to get us to back his Iraq misadvanture. Consider this if you still think that Saddam and Iraq were an imminant threat to us. Let me remind you one more time that the man didn't even have an air force. On top of that, we controlled Iraq's Northern and Southern "No Fly Zones" and we also had "our" UN Inspectors "roaming at will" the rest of Iraq. Since we controlled the UN at the time, we controlled the UN Inspectors. The truth is that Saddam couldn't even control his own country so tell me how he could've been a threat to us. Lets not continue to fool ourselves. Lets stop being silly. I don't claim to know everything but I obviously know more than you pro-Bushites. There's really no excuse for knowing at least what I know and that, my friends, isn't really very much. Obviously, my "intellignece sources" were better than George W. Bush's. And I only resort to newspapers, books, T.V., magazines and the Internet. But I have to confess, unlike President Bush, I do read!

George W. Bush only recently completed his Flip-Flop and changed his tune. V.P. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, still continuous his lies regarding Saddam's role in the NYC and DC attacks. Dick Cheney is completely close-minded, he still thinks that Saddam was in partnership or cahoots with the terrorists.

As to the 9/11 commission report, they were under political pressure to report nothing that could be considered critical of George W. Bush--under the circumstances, they did the best they could.

After Saddam's downfall, Iraq became a gathering place for Terrorists or, as you put it, a safe haven or sanctuary for terrorists. I emphasize the words "after and became."

As for Ollie North, why do you respect him so much when he used to "criminally" sell drugs in order to buy weapons to pass on to the Contras in Nicaragua? He was working for "our" Government when Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan were President. He's a nothing type who'd be in Prison right now if President Gerald Ford haddn't pardoned him to save someone else. Notice that all three of these gentlemen were Republicans. Go to Google.com and do your research--know about whom you're "building up." Believe it, he's not a good example for children to follow.

Your condensed POST follows:

"...Can you find one direct quote from George Bush where he connected Saddam to 9/11? Some republicans have alleged this but I don't recall Bush saying anything other than Suddam's ties to terrorist activities. As the 9/11 commission reported there are indirect ties to the attack but nothing direct. Without securing the peace in Iraq, the safe haven of sanctuary for terrorism would have continued and they would have allowed the build up that would have lead to other terrorist attacks.
Bush did say Saddam was a immenent threat. I believe he was. He was certainly a threat to the people of Iraq, he was a threat to Israel. He was a threat to other parts of the world. Terrorist activity in the world right now is directly associated with groups that Saddam offered financial support and protection in his borders and they are still fighting to maintain Iraq as a safe haven for terrorist activity.
Watch War Stories with Ollie North on Sunday night on Fox News. You might not like or agree with Ollie but he's going to be in Iraq interviewing the soldiers in Iraq. Listen to what they have to say about the war instead of all the arm chair observers who are writing books and going on the news and yet do not have the first clue about what it means to serve in the military. Last Night Juan Williams argued about military protocol with a man who served. Apparently Juan, who never served knows more about the military than those who did..."
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 17, 2004 11:32 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 17, 2004 04:01 PM

We all need a laugh from time 2 time.

John Kerry is not JFK in my mind, I knew John Kennedy, I shook his hand, and John Kerry is no JFK

At least a few of you got it.

Posted by: Tony Campanile at September 17, 2004 08:15 PM

READ THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE CAREFULLY:

VISIT http://www.mfso.org/

A Soldier's MOTHER Speaks Out
by MFSO Member Denise Thomas

An essay has been making the rounds on the internet called "A Soldier's Father Speaks Out."
In it, the the author attacks those who oppose the war, accusing them
of not supporting the troops and of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
MFSO member Denise Thomas wrote the following in response:

I have a daughter who is an American soldier and who recently returned from a year of service in Baghdad. I am married to a 23-year Army veteran. It is likely that he will serve in Iraq soon.

I am so fed up with propaganda coming from some Iraq war supporters that I wrote this open letter. I care very much about what affects the American soldier.

I'm not impressed when you spew propaganda that unnecessarily places our troops in harm's way. Why do you believe that only you are patriotic? Why do you exaggerate the positive things that happen in Iraq while ignoring the lies that our weary children and the American public have been told by this administration? Then you tell us (and our children who are fighting) that we don't support our troops.

I'm not impressed when you ignore the large number of American soldiers killed and wounded in Iraq, dismissing these brave patriots by using the condescending phrase "soldiers die in wars". Does that mean that we should not keep as many of them safe as we can? Using medically unfit soldiers to cover this administration's miscalculations concerning troop strength, and going into this conflict without most of our allies, is causing our soldiers to pay a much higher price. And you tell us that WE don't support our troops?

I'm not impressed, when you spout constant criticism of what we do to attempt to end this war and bring our soldiers safely home. You have a rabid need to discredit us, when all we want to do is to save our soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians from unnecessary harm. And you say that we don't support our troops.

I'm not impressed when you tell our soldiers that they will be going home soon, then keep them for more than a year. There is a limit to human endurance. And you say WE don't support our troops.

I'm not impressed when you spout propaganda that attempts to undermine our credibility in the eyes of the media. YOU KEEP TELLING THEM WE DON'T SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!!!!

The hearts and minds of the Iraqi population cannot be won unless we demonstrate to them that we believe that an Iraqi life is every bit as valuable as an American life. We cannot destroy entire civilian neighborhoods, killing innocent people, for the slight possibility of neutralizing a few terrorists ---not if we support our troops.

You are fostering contention toward patriotic Americans who happen to believe differently than you do. Why do you refuse to believe that we support our troops just as you do? Why won't you talk to us without condemning or demeaning us? Why do you believe that those of US who have children who serve are less moral than those of YOU who have children who serve? I am finding that in order for soldiers and their families to be respected by the conservatives, we have to AGREE with the conservatives. We are moral, we are American, and we support our troops.

I tried to help my daughter get the medical discharge that she should have gotten 2 ½ years ago, and it became a partisan issue. Why is that? Medically unfit soldiers should be removed from the military when they become unfit. I was ignored or insulted by all pro-Iraq war people that I came into contact with. My experience has definitely helped me to move farther to the left, but I STILL support our troops.

Yes, I will do everything I can to get W. Bush out of office. He is the most divisive president in my memory. This war could have been postponed until we secured international support, or it could have been avoided altogether. We could have removed Hussein from power with a small force of persecuted Iraqi dissidents who begged Bush for the funds to let them do it. That strategy would not have given Bush access to Iraqi oil or control over the new government.

This is my right to freedom of speech. You have a right to your freedoms, including a right to try and keep W. Bush in office. That is the American way.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 17, 2004 08:21 PM

Abel,

I ask you again. I don't want your word for it. I want a quote. The speeches are online. Quote George, not your opinion about what you think he said. I can't help it if you interpreted his speeches wrong. George Bush said that Saddam was an imminent threat. Not specifically to us.

I'll even help you out. Go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html and re-read the speech.

Lot's of people have connected dots but those dots are interpretations not the actual words of the president.

Bush said that Suddam had weapons that he used against his people, gave a case history of the use of those weapons and warned of the unique threat that Saddam posed to the security of the world through his support of Terrorists.

He did not claim that Saddam was directly associated to 9/11 and even drew a distinction between Saddam and al Quaida.

One of the problems with this election is that we're letting other people tell us what people have said without going back and checking it out. You might have interpreted the message wrong, but that is your problem, not the presidents. Plainly and clearly he lays out his strategy for taking the war to Iraq, addresses concerns and then explains why he believed we must move forward.

Of course, the democrats don't want us to go back and read the speech. They want to tell us what he said, they want to keep dredging up the same crap over and over again and I'm really getting tired of it. You can disagree with the reasons we went to war so long as the reasons you cite are the one Bush gave, not the ones you think you heard him say.

Find me a quote.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 17, 2004 10:01 PM

Conservatism,
I keep telling you pro-Bushites that, for whatever reason, you do not know how to think. Sure, all of the people you mention agreed that Saddam presented an imminant danger to our country and the Middle East. The ones during the Bill Clinton administration era simply relied on flawed CIA reports and the ones during the Bush (43) administration era relied on what George W. Bush told them. I knew better regarding the situation because I relied on newspapers, magazines, books, T.V., and the Internet. The necessary information was there for all to see. For example, I knew about us controlling Iraq's Northern as well as its Southern "No Fly Zones." Do you remember about Iraq's "No Fly Zones?" I also knew that our UN Inspectors were roaming all of Iraq looking for WMDs. What I'm telling you was, in fact, common knowledge. Many of us were out in the streets protesting against the President because we knew what George W. Bush wanted to do. I mean about invading Iraq. That wasn't a secret either. That Madeline Albright, John Edwards, Bob Graham, Carl Levin, Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, Robert Byrd, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Tom Dacshle, Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockafeller, Hillary Clinton, Henry Waxman, and John Kerry all said the same things matters very little because they weren't the President. George W. Bush said that he was the President and the "Buck stops there." No excuses will be accepted--GW Bush screwed up and really needs to be demoted or replaced immediately if not sooner. Rest assured that I would be saying the same thing had Al Gore or John Kerry been President. High level people who fail must be replaced when they hold important responsible positions.

Your condensed POST follows:

"Abel, When you heard Bush saying that we were in danger, Saddam had WMD, and it was an imminent threat... you knew it was a lie, right? What did you think when Madeline Albright, John Edwards, Bob Graham, Carl Levin, Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, Robert Byrd, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Tom Dacshle, Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockafeller, Hillary Clinton, Henry Waxman, and your man John Kerry all said the same things, at the same time, and even years ahead of George W. Bush? I'm sure it wasn't lie when they said it was it?
I've said it all along, and I'm goin to say it again. If you want to debate the issues, lets get to it. But don't throw out opinions on who lied unless you want the cold hard truth, and the truth is that if Bush lied, then all of your liberal buddies taught him how to do it years ago. I can agree with either situation. We can call them all liars, or we can say the intelligence was faulty. But do NOT sit there and tell me or anyone else that essentially the same comments about WMD are lies from 1 person, and gospel from another."
Posted by: Conservatism at September 17, 2004 02:23 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 18, 2004 01:10 AM

Jim Rodkey,
What's your point? Are you telling me that George W. Bush didn't say that Saddam and Iraq presented an imminant threat to us? Are you telling me that George W. Bush didn't say that there was some coordination and cooperation between Saddam Hussein and the Terrorists? Well, you're lying if that's what you're saying. The fact is that George W. Bush said both thing on not one occasion but on many occasions. I don't know what your purpose is in denying it or why? One thing that I do know is that I don't have to look up any particular speech and as a matter of fact, V.P. Dick Cheney is still saying that there was a direct connection between bin Laden's Terrorists and Saddam. He's still living in a dream world--don't awaken him! He's sleep! But so is George W. Bush. He thinks everything is going fine in Iraq and in Afghanistan and things are not going fine over there. He just hopes that the American people don't find out before the November 2 election. Well, he may get his wish and he may win the election. What will I say, if that happens? I'll say, "The American people deserved George W. Bush and they got what they deserved."

Your condensed POST follows:

"Abel, I ask you again. I don't want your word for it. I want a quote. The speeches are online. Quote George, not your opinion about what you think he said. I can't help it if you interpreted his speeches wrong. George Bush said that Saddam was an imminent threat. Not specifically to us.
I'll even help you out. Go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html and re-read the speech.
Lot's of people have connected dots but those dots are interpretations not the actual words of the president.
Bush said that Suddam had weapons that he used against his people, gave a case history of the use of those weapons and warned of the unique threat that Saddam posed to the security of the world through his support of Terrorists.
He did not claim that Saddam was directly associated to 9/11 and even drew a distinction between Saddam and al Quaida.
One of the problems with this election is that we're letting other people tell us what people have said without going back and checking it out. You might have interpreted the message wrong, but that is your problem, not the presidents. Plainly and clearly he lays out his strategy for taking the war to Iraq, addresses concerns and then explains why he believed we must move forward.
Of course, the democrats don't want us to go back and read the speech. They want to tell us what he said, they want to keep dredging up the same crap over and over again and I'm really getting tired of it. You can disagree with the reasons we went to war so long as the reasons you cite are the one Bush gave, not the ones you think you heard him say.
Find me a quote."
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 17, 2004 10:01 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 18, 2004 01:41 AM

Abel,

I wasn't defending Ollie North. I was directing you to his program because at least he's talking to the troops and allowing them to express their views an opinions and offering an alternative to what we get on a daily basis. I expected the Ollie North attack. I guess you want me to listen to the Dan Rather's of journalism because they are so fair and unbiased. At least North stood trial for his war crimes, something John Kerry can't say. He got free pass, protected by the Kennedy's.

You really need to get your history straight. Nixon and the Ford Pardon's had nothing to do will Ollie North. It was Reagen who was trying to fix the mess in the Middle East that Jimmy Carter got us in. If your going to attack a man's credibility at least keep it in the right decade.

Here's the facts: North was indicted March 16, 1988, on 16 felony counts. After standing trial on 12, North was convicted May 4, 1989 of three charges: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines and 1,200 hours community service. A three-judge appeals panel on July 20, 1990, vacated North's conviction for further proceedings to determine whether his immunized testimony influenced witnesses in the trial. The Supreme Court declined to review the case. Judge Gesell dismissed the case September 16, 1991, after hearings on the immunity issue, on the motion of the independent counsel.

Allegations were made of the drugs, but never proved. The most damaging part of the hearing was a trade-off of arms for hostages in an attempt to rescue captured American Prisoners.

I find it amazing that you jumped right over Carter, the Democrat who was propably one of the worst presidents of this century, and went back to Nixon and Ford who had nothing to do with the North story. Jimmy Carter, who is attacking Bush and supporting Kerry, has the same views about terrorists that Kerry has. We can negotiate with them. We can reason with them. That type of thinking lead to countless attacks on our Embassies and attacks on our troops stationed in the middle east. When he finally did something about it, he abandoned out troops in the middle of the desert, they were captured and held hostage.

We have a responsibility to learn from history, not distort it to suit our own political ideology.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 18, 2004 05:29 AM

Abel,

It would be nice to see the letter she was responding to, but that's nowhere to be found on the site posting her response.

I also find it interesting that she feels that support of the troops and the war in Iraq is propaganda, but she holds the truth and that her wrods aren't propaganda. A little more research showed they couldn't scare up more that a handful of protestors at most rallies they's held in opposition to the war which has almost 200,000 troops in Iraq. They did scare up 50,000 protestors in Boston, but most of them had no affiliation with the group.

The actual number of parents against the war is minute when compared to the number of parents who are proud of the sons and daughters in active service and believe they are defending the freedom or the world. They, of course, aren't going to get any press because that would dispell the media's bias that most American's are against the war. People need to try and stop turning Iraq into Vietnam, it's entirely different. The fact that the group you recognized is affiliated with the Vietnam Veteran's Against The War, whose testimony was falsified according to FBI documents and investigations into the actual service of these men who claim atrocities in Vietnam discredits them. They were lies back then and they're still lies, no matter how they try and re-invent history.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 18, 2004 05:53 AM

Posted by: Tony Campanile at September 17, 2004 08:15 PM

Tony, you have to remember the GW JR Supporters minds are WARPED! They have been brainwashed by GW JR himself!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 18, 2004 10:21 AM

Rodkey,
The Bush Administration did say the there was a possible connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Queda. You may not want to hear it, but thats fact. Period. Case closed.

Posted by: JM at September 18, 2004 11:41 AM

Jim Rodkey,
As I recall, it was President Bush (41) who followed Reagan who was the man who pardoned, (I forget who), that made it possible for Ollie North to escape having to serve time in prison. Problems with Iran lasted quite a while. You need to understand that I'm saying what I'm saying from memory. I remember what you say happened when President Carter got us into the downed helicopter mess in Iran while trying to resolve the American hostages situation. He was trying to free the American hostages. You remember, Carter only lasted 4 years. Reagon eventually won the election and the situation I'm talking about began to unfold. Reagan followed Carter and he began "illegally" wheeling and dealing with the Iranians to pay for the already released Americans. I don't know the details but knowingly or unknowlingly Reagan began his Iran-Contra scandal. I have been made to understand that, due to his demented memory, Ronald Reagan himself was unaware about what was going on. In any case, his people began to illegally sell drugs from, I believe, the Afghanistan area and using the cash to pay for Russian arms used to help the Contras overthrow the brothers who were running Nicaragua. One of the brothers had been elected President but I don't remember his name. In any case, he was s Socialist according to Reagan and he hated Socialists and thus began this Iran-Contra illegal scandal. Ollie North, who, I think was a Marine pilot, was up to his neck involved in this illegal affair. President Carter was not, he had been a long time gone. As I recall, This case actually came to a head at the end of Reagan's second term. You'd better go back to do a bit more research on this matter. It was during this Reagan period that the Ollie North thing happened. I do believe my memory is better than your research so far. President Bush, GW's father pardoned this man??? who made it impossible for North to be found guilty. In any case, my point is that Ollie North is not the kind of individual that I would willingly associate myself with or even be seen with. He is definitely not a good example for our children to follow. One more thing, President Carter was a good and honorable man and he still is. He even won the Nobel peace price. Reagon, because of his memory, messed up royally and it was him who negotiated big time with the Iranians or Terrorists of that time. As a matter of fact, it was during this time that Saddam Hussein became "our man" who under our name, "gassed Iranians and his own people." Go back and research this topic some more--it won't hurt you. Me, I may forget names but I remember what happened.

Your condensed POST follows:

"I find it amazing that you jumped right over Carter, the Democrat who was propably one of the worst presidents of this century, and went back to Nixon and Ford who had nothing to do with the North story. Jimmy Carter, who is attacking Bush and supporting Kerry, has the same views about terrorists that Kerry has. We can negotiate with them. We can reason with them. That type of thinking lead to countless attacks on our Embassies and attacks on our troops stationed in the middle east. When he finally did something about it, he abandoned out troops in the middle of the desert, they were captured and held hostage.
We have a responsibility to learn from history, not distort it to suit our own political ideology."
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 18, 2004 05:29 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 18, 2004 06:57 PM

Jim Rodkey,
If what you say is true, then we, not Saddam Hussein, have made Iraq a sanctuary for terrorism. They certainly weren't there when Saddam was there. He hated Ossama bin Laden and his Terrorists. George W. Bush has admitted this already, in his usual indirect way, that it's better for us to fight Terrorism there in Iraq, rather than here in the US of A. At least admit the truth for a change. Don't worry, it won't hurt too much. Many Americans don't believe this to be true, however, that it is Terrrorist who we are fighting. They think it's mostly the different tribes from Iraq who are fighting us and who don't want Americans or a Christian occupying power in their Holy Land. I wonder how we would like it if the Muslims were occupying our land? Have you ever thought about that?

Your condensed POST follows:

"David didn't screw up, your misquoting him. Many of the insurgents that are making the life of the Iraqi people a living hell have come to Iraq to wage their long-awaited war against the United States. They aren't fighting for Iraq, they are fighting against the United States. We toppled Suddam and his regime and if the terrorists hadn't grouped together from the all over the middle east to fight the war, it would be over. Suddam had made Iraq a sanctuary for terrorism, by removing Suddam, we hurt their ability to hide in Iraq so they could regroup, plan and then strike out. The people in Iraq were liberated and then the flood of terrorists groups from the Palestinians, Pakistan, Iran and elsewhere came to Iraq to restablish a rule by dictatorship for a people who wanted peace and democracy."
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 16, 2004 12:50 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 18, 2004 07:19 PM

Abel. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North and read this. I have to rely on reseacrh because I know my memory is going to biased to a conservative viewpoint. You also need to look at the safe haven Hussein provided for Terrorists. Their are links to Osama Bin Laden, but not specifically with the 9/11 attacks. Abu Massab Al-Zarqawi is a Palestinian national who is had Hussein connections. The save haven provided by Hussein helped make Iraq a critical step in the war on Terrorism. Did you go back and re-read the President's speech?

JM - I challenge you to do the same thing I challenged Abel to do. Find me the George Bush quote where he says that? His speeches are all available. Talking heads and democratic pundits keep saying this but in the speech in 2003 where Bush called the country to war in Iraq he distinguishes between Hussem and Al-Queda. Besides, that isn't what the post between Abel and myself concerns. The connection you would be looking for is Hussein and the Talaban or more directly to Bin Laden. Al-Queda is a seperate terrorist organization that provided supported and some level of safe haven to the Talaban.

There have been a lot of accustations about what President Bush has said, mostly thanks to a news media who is into interpretation and not facts. That interpretation becomes established facts in reporting but doesn't make it the truth. Find me the quote.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 18, 2004 09:04 PM

Abel - What are you talking about?
and d. jones - we are brainwashed by President Bush?

You two and your new friend JM are pathetic. Have you even read the 9/11 Report? Somehow I doubt it.

No Terrorism in Iraq Before the War?
Who does John Kerry think he's kidding?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/631slkle.asp

Excerpts from this article are posted below:

Kerry campaign:
"There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war."
CIA Analysis, January 2003: Iraqi Support for Terrorism, (p. 314 of Senate Intel Report):
"Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism."

Kerry campaign:
"There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war."
CIA Analysis, January 2003--Iraqi Support for Terrorism, (p. 314 of Senate Intel Report):
"Iraq continues to be a safehaven, transit point, or operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States, Israel and other allies."

Kerry campaign:
"There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war."
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 315):
"The CIA provided 78 reports, from multiple sources, [redacted] documenting instances in which the Iraqi regime either trained operatives for attacks or dispatched them to carry out attacks."

Kerry campaign:
"There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war."
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316):
"Iraq continued to participate in terrorist attacks throughout the 1990s."

Kerry campaign:
"There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war."
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316):
"From 1996 to 2003, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] focused its terrorist activities on western interests, particularly against the U.S. and Israel."

Kerry campaign:
"There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war."
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316):
"Throughout 2002, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] was becoming increasingly aggressive in planning attacks against U.S. interests. The CIA provided eight reports to support this assessment."

Kerry campaign:
"There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war."
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 331):
"Twelve reports received [redacted] from sources that the CIA described as having varying reliability, cited Iraq or Iraqi national involvement in al Qaeda's [chemical, biological, nuclear] CBW efforts."

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 18, 2004 10:01 PM

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091904W.shtml

Secrecy in the Bush Administration
By Rep. Henry A. Waxman
Yubanet.com

Friday 18 September 2004

Rep. Henry A. Waxman has released a comprehensive examination of secrecy in the Bush Administration. The report analyzes how the Administration has implemented each of our nation’s major open government laws. It finds that there has been a consistent pattern in the Administration’s actions: laws that are designed to promote public access to information have been undermined, while laws that authorize the government to withhold information or to operate in secret have repeatedly been expanded. The cumulative result is an unprecedented assault on the principle of open government.

The Administration has supported amendments to open government laws to create new categories of protected information that can be withheld from the public. President Bush has issued an executive order sharply restricting the public release of the papers of past presidents. The Administration has expanded the authority to classify documents and dramatically increased the number of documents classified. It has used the USA Patriot Act and novel legal theories to justify secret investigations, detentions, and trials. And the Administration has engaged in litigation to contest Congress’ right to information.

The records at issue have covered a vast array of topics, ranging from simple census data and routine agency correspondence to presidential and vice presidential records. Among the documents that the Administration has refused to release to the public and members of Congress are (1) the contacts between energy companies and the Vice President’s energy task force, (2) the communications between the Defense Department and the Vice President’s office regarding contracts awarded to Halliburton, (3) documents describing the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib, (4) memoranda revealing what the White House knew about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and (5) the cost estimates of the Medicare prescription drug legislation withheld from Congress.

There are three main categories of federal open government laws: (1) laws that provide public access to federal records; (2) laws that allow the government to restrict public access to federal information; and (3) laws that provide for congressional access to federal records. In each area, the Bush Administration has acted to restrict the amount of government information that is available.

Laws That Provide Public Access to Federal Records
Beginning in the 1960s, Congress enacted a series of landmark laws that promote "government in the sunshine." These include the Freedom of Information Act, the Presidential Records Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Each of these laws enables the public to view the internal workings of the executive branch. And each has been narrowed in scope and application under the Bush Administration.

Freedom of Information Act
The Freedom of Information Act is the primary law providing access to information held by the executive branch. Adopted in 1966, FOIA established the principle that the public should have broad access to government records. Under the Bush Administration, however, the statute’s reach has been narrowed and agencies have resisted FOIA requests through procedural tactics and delay.

The Administration has:

Issued guidance reversing the presumption in favor of disclosure and instructing agencies to withhold a broad and undefined category of "sensitive" information;
Supported statutory and regulatory changes that preclude disclosure of a wide range of information, including information relating to the economic, health, and security infrastructure of the nation; and
Placed administrative obstacles in the way of organizations seeking to use FOIA to obtain federal records, such as denials of fee waivers and delays in agency responses.
Independent academic experts consulted for this report decried these trends. They stated that the Administration has "radically reduced the public right to know," that its policies "are not only sucking the spirit out of the FOIA, but shriveling its very heart," and that no Administration in modern times has "done more to conceal the workings of government from the people."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091904W.shtml

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 18, 2004 11:54 PM

Jim Rodkey,
Thanks for that web site address and the guy who was pardoned by George Bush (41) was John Poindexter. This pardon made it impossible to continue the criminal case against Ollie North. Thanks again for providing the address. The Iran-Contra scandal messed up Ronald Regan's almost perfect second presidential term. Too bad!

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 19, 2004 12:43 AM

Excellant post Calamity. To many people are saying things that the President never said while, at the same time, not holding John Kerry accountable for the things he actually said that conflict with all that we now know about the war. I doubt that John Kerry has bothered to read the 9/11 report as well and he's hoping that the voters don't read it as well. If they did, they'd know how much he is misrepresenting the truth.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 19, 2004 01:01 PM

Rodkey,
You are telling me to get my history straight? Well, you are a little mixed up with your history too. But, you're right in a manner of speaking. Reagan's people did, with or without his knowledge, commit the crime and not Reagan but Bush (41) tried to fix up the mess that President Reagan's people got us into. As I recall now, it was President Bush who pardoned John Poindexter who lost his job as National Security Adviser under Ronald Reagan, and was convicted of conspiracy, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and destroying evidence in the Iran Contra scandal. Poindexter basically masterminded illegal schemes to make end runs around congress and the American people to sell arms to countries who are now declared enemies of the US. He did this with a renegade military officer, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North to raise funds to buy arms for the Contras (who at the time were a US backed force trying to overthrow the revolutionary and socialist government of Nicaragua). Congress had written a law strictly forbidding giving arms to the Contras and the Reagan Administration broke that law through its actions. President Carter was an innocent victim in that Americans were taken hostage by the Iranians during his term of office and Ronald Reagan took questionable political advantage of the situation. Is my memory getting better? Lets see if I remember the order of the Presidents after John F Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George WH Bush (41), Clinton, and George W. Bush (43). Am I correct? Talk about Poindexter destroying evidence, well I suspect that Bush (43) and/or his agents destroyed evidence too--evidence relating to his missing time with the National Guard. I am talking about the "missing" original documents.

Your condensed POST follows:

"You really need to get your history straight. Nixon and the Ford Pardon's had nothing to do will Ollie North. It was Reagen who was trying to fix the mess in the Middle East that Jimmy Carter got us in. If your going to attack a man's credibility at least keep it in the right decade..."
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 18, 2004 05:29 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 19, 2004 01:12 PM

In all of this bantering back and forth about the war in Iraq, is it possible that we have forgotten that President Bush and the United States government declared an end to major combat operations on May 1, 2003. If the terrorists would have ceased their attacks and reruiting from other countries, the transition would have been a peaceful transition into a democratic state. The President isn't keeping this war going, it's the insurrgents, the TERRORISTS, who will not allow a peaceful transition for the citizens of Iraq. It's the terrorists who are attacking and they are killing more Iraqi people than Americans. They know that we aren't there to occupy but rather to liberate and they don't want the Iraqi people liberated. They target those who want to join the Iraqi military and police departments, they target those who want a democratic government and the leaders of those who want to move their country forawrd in peace. And then we have people posting here who think these terrorists aren't a threat to the peace and security of the world and that our helping to defend Iraq is wrong. I don't get it. How can anybody who claims to be a humanitarian want to leave the real citizens of Iraq to the mercy of the militant terrorists who simply want to replace Suddam with another tyranical dictator who will turn their country back into a safe haven for terrorists. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 19, 2004 01:55 PM

Abel, I won't refute your facts other than to say, it is very different from what was originally said. I'm not a big fan of former President Bush (41). He stopped short in Desert Storm because of fear of public opinion and loss of international support. I still think Ollie North should have served time. My support of the program which aired tonight was not for Ollie North, but for the content of the show, which showed troops in Iraq and allowed us to see their attitude and moral, something the rest of the news media is trying to keep from us.

You can suspect Bush (43) all you want, but until you have proof all you have is a suspicion. There's no proof yet.

Concerning your post about the secrecy of the Bush administration. Would you have the President release all information, including information that could put our soldiers in harm's way simply because of the Press's need to know? I think that sort of thing is dangerous.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 19, 2004 11:00 PM

You two and your new friend JM are pathetic. Have you even read the 9/11 Report? Somehow I doubt it.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 18, 2004 10:01 PM

Calamity, one simple statement. GW JR never ready the 911 reports or did he? We are not the President of the U.S. nor are part of his Admin., and cannot be held accountable. Many voted for GW JR (The Dummy) for a job as President of the U.S. Did he read the the 911 reports??? That is the true question.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 20, 2004 01:23 AM

d. jones

What an ignorant statement!!
Now you are an expert on whether the President read the 9/11 report? Do you have spy cameras set up in the White House? YOu sure make foolish comments and show your lack of knowledge when you make these statements. By the way, I read the 9/11 Report - it is free on the Internet at http://www.9-11commission.gov/

You can download to your PC or read it online. It is one of the most important documents of our time.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 20, 2004 12:29 PM

D. Jones

If you ever listened to the President or read his speeches you'd know that he has read the 9/11 commission reports. He speaks about the reports on the campaign trail and has addresses several of the concerns in the report and it's recommendations. Just keep spouting the rhetoric. The real question then returns to you, since you want us to believe you are some sort of well-informed citizen, the question is where are you getting your information. From the actual reports or are you like the sheep who blindly follow whatever their party tells them even if it leads them to their own destruction. Read it for yourself, then make an informed comment.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 20, 2004 01:56 PM

"Theft of the Presidency"
BBC-TV Newsnight
Thursday, February 15, 2001
by Greg Palast

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1174000/1174115.stm

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=29&row=1

GREG PALAST: Washington, the marine band plays 'Hail to the Chief' for George W Bush, 43rd President of the United States. But in Florida, some are singing 'Hail to the Thief'.

PALAST: We are coming into Tallahassee. We want to know whether George W Bush won the election or did brother Jeb steal it for him? Our investigation suggest the answer lies in this shuttered building and in a very expensive contract between Governor Jeb's division of elections and a private company named DBT, which accidentally wiped off the voter rolls thousands of Democratic voters. 18th floor division of elections, we have come to ask Mr Clayton Roberts, the director, a few questions. Roberts agreed to talk, but became a bit uncomfortable when he learned that we had obtained the secret DBT contract, and asked him if he knew what DBT were up to.

CLAYTON ROBERTS: Florida Director of Elections No, I didn't ask DBT. They do what we contract them to do. We have a statute that says we have to have a private company to do this. We put it out for bid, we put it out for bid, and I think I'm done with this interview.

PALAST: Let me just show you the contract if I could Mr Roberts. It says here in the contract that the verification is supposed to be done by DBT. That you paid them $4 million. It could look to others don't you think that you paid $4 million to purchase this election for the Republican party. 95% wrong on the felon list. Mr. Roberts, could you answer the question regarding the contract... Instead, Mr Roberts called out State troopers. It's interesting here?

STATE TROOPER: Oh, man! Never a dull moment.

PALAST: I don't know why he had to call the police. We hadn't gotten to our difficult questions yet! The difficult questions are: Did Governor Jeb Bush, his Secretary of State Katherine Harris, and her Director of Elections, Clayton Roberts, know they had wrongly barred 22,000 black, Democrat voters before the elections? After the elections did they use their powers to prevent the count of 20,000 votes for the Democrats? The Democrats say the answers to both questions are yes.

COMMISSIONER: In any other country in the world, if this had occurred, there probably would have been riots or military troops throughout the streets.

PARTY CHAIRMAN: Al Gore won the election. He won the popular vote and he won the vote in Florida. I think that that's pretty clear.

VOTER: It wasn't done fairly. They shouldn't allow you to contest an election then give you no way to contest it.

LEGISLATOR: Jeb Bush promised his brother he was going to deliver Florida. I believe the Republicans strategy was at all costs we deliver Florida.

CAMPAIGNER: Were people taken out of polls and stopped from voting? Yes, I think that was not right. I smell a rat!

PALAST: This is Database Technologies. This is the company that the state of Florida hired to remove the names of people who committed serious crimes from the voter lists. I have obtained a document marked "confidential and trade secret". It says the company was paid millions of dollars to make telephone calls to verify they got the right names - but they didn't. There is nothing in the state of Florida files that says they made these telephone calls. So the question remains, why did the Republican leaders of this state pay millions for a list that stopped thousands of innocent Democrats from voting? The first list from DBT included 8,000 names from Texas supplied by George Bush's state officials. They said they were all felons, serious criminals barred from voting. As it turns out, almost none were. Local officials raised a ruckus and DBT issued a new list naming 58,000 felons. But the one county which went through the whole expensive process of checking the new list name by name found it was still 95% wrong. Reverend Willie Whiting was one of those removed from voter roles after DBT wrongly labelled him a serious criminal.

REVEREND WILLIE WHITING: I have never spent a night in jail.

PALAST: Were you ever busted?

WHITING: No. I had a speeding ticket probably 25-30 years ago, I guess, but that's about it.

PALAST: Do you think you should be allowed to vote if you had a speeding ticket?

WHITING: Absolutely.

PALAST: The Florida legislature likes to see young prisoners paraded in front of the capital in old cavalry uniforms.

PRISON GUARD: Me and superman had a fight

PRISONERS: Me and superman had a fight

PRISON GUARD: I hit him in the head with some Kryptonite

PRISONERS: I hit him in the head with some Kryptonite

PALAST: More often than not in America, the prisoner's colour is black. Because of the way DBT generated the list, every genuine black felon in the United States could knock out every black voter in Florida with the same surname and similar date of birth. That's why the NAACP is suing Florida for violating voters' civil rights.

LARRY OTTINGER: Lawyer for NAACP Governor Bush, the Secretary of State Katherine Harris, Clayton Roberts, the head of elections, all knew or should have known in advance that certain election policies and practices would disproportionately impact low-income areas, and in particular black citizens and other minority citizens, and that this would disproportionately impact Democratic voters, based on historical voting trends.

AL GORE: Thank you, Florida!

PALAST: Altogether, it looks like this cost the Democrats about 22,000 votes in Florida, which George Bush won by only 537 votes. The US civil rights commission is also on the trail. They called in Bush, Harris and Roberts. Bush did not convince his critics.

UNNAMED MAN: You screwed up this state. You sealed the ballot.

PALAST: Commissioner Edley and his colleagues will be in Miami tomorrow to hear from voters wrongly disqualified.

DR CHRISTOPHER EDLEY: US Civil Rights Commissioner If you are going to do it, by all means as a matter of due process and fairness, it's got to be done with excruciating care. It's a democracy, the vote counts. There is a lot of public concern that the contractor selected is a firm that seems to have ties to the Republican party.

PALAST: They will be putting our evidence to Database Technologies. Their vice-president told us that "manual verification by telephone calls" does not mean ringing people up to check they have got the right person. So were they paid to produce a list which they knew would name thousands of innocent black people? In fact DBT told Newsnight that Clayton Roberts and the State of Florida: "... wanted there to be more names than were actually verified as being a convicted felon." So did they use their powers to prevent the count of 20,000 votes for the Democrats? You don't have to be black. In Palm Beach, America's privileged nurse their tans and their anger.

UNNAMED WOMAN: I thought I voted for Al Gore but unfortunately I voted for Pat Buchanan, and I wasn't happy about that, because I am a Jewish voter and he would have been the last person in the world I would have voted for.

PALAST: Whacky butterfly ballots caused thousands in this Democrat town to accidentally mess up and they were refused replacement ballots promised them by state law.

JOANNE CARBONE: From the time the elections started until that awful decision that the Supreme Court made, I came across hundreds of people who made a mistake and I saw over 13,000 complaints filed by people who live in Palm Beach county.

PALAST: In all, Palm Beach voting machines misread 27,000 ballots. Jeb Bush's Secretary of State, Katharine Harris, stopped them counting these votes by hand. She did the same to Gadstone, one of Florida's blackest, poorest and most Democrat counties, where machines failed to count one in eight ballots. Again Harris stopped the hand count. This alone cost Gore another 700 votes, in an election in which Harris declared George Bush winner by only 537 votes.

KATHARINE HARRIS: In accordance with the laws of the State of Florida, I hereby declare Governor George W Bush the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes for the President of the United States.

PALAST: Harris was a busy woman. In charge of Florida's vote count and co-chair of Bush's presidential campaign.

LOIS FRANKEL: Had she really been unbiased? Wouldn't the appropriate actions for her to be to say - let's really get to the bottom of this election and let's make sure every vote is counted.

PALAST: Lois Frankel represents Palm Beach, in the State legislature where she leads the Democratic opposition.

FRANKEL: She wanted George Bush to win. She interpreted every rule, every law in a way to help George Bush.

PALAST: We are driving down to Miami to witness an American ritual. In Britain, you count the votes, then announce the winner. In Florida they declare the winner first and here we are, still counting the votes.

WOMAN'S VOICE: She is showing the ballot in front of the light. They can see the light through where the chads have been punched through. Then she holds it in front because sometimes you can see things in different light. They have a whole column.

PALAST: Normally these are machine-read, right?

UNNAMED WOMAN: Right.

PALAST: They are carefully going through the 179,855 uncounted ballots that Harris did not want tallied. They'll know the winner next month. Sources tell Newsnight that Gore's ahead by 20,000 votes. The Biltmore, grandest hotel in Miami. Democrats are upstairs eating with their richest friends charging $5,000 a plate. Let's see if we can get in. Not far away from the millionaires on the balcony a voter had taken hostages at gun point protesting against the election fraud. But here it is back to champagne politics as usual. One Democrat whispered they would have done the same as Katharine Harris if they had the chance. But another, party chairman, Bob Poe remains bitter about this.

BOB POE: Chairman, Florida Democrats Jeb Bush, Katharine Harris, Clay Roberts did everything they could to stop every legitimate count of the vote. And that's what did us in.

PALAST: All fingers point to the Jeb Bush crew in Tallahassee. Investigators want to breakthrough the iron shutters.

EDLEY: I have to say that thus far we have been disappointed by the explanations, or perhaps I should say the lack of explanation provided by the state officials. When we spoke with the Governor and the Secretary of State and even with the Director of the Bureau of Elections underneath the Secretary of State, they were pointing fingers at everybody else, saying "look it wasn't our responsibility", they were in charge, which is a disheartening disquieting thing for us to hear - who should be held accountable for what clearly was a system that broke down.

PALAST: State officials point the finger at the counties and say it is their responsibility to check if the names on the list are real felons before disqualifying them. Clayton Roberts says his job is just to pass on the list. Roberts now admits he didn't bother to check with DBT, if innocent people were on it.

ROBERTS: Please turn off that camera.

PALAST: Off camera he said: We did not call and say did you check the list again... the whole tenor of this is like OK you screwed up you didn't check with DBT and if you want to hang this on me that's fine. It is certainly fine for George W Bush. Even if investigators conclude that Jeb Bush and the Republicans conspired to steal this election, the man in that house for the next four years will be George W Bush.
Click here to download this transcript.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1174000/1174115.stm

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=29&row=1

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 20, 2004 08:48 PM

Abel is so busy crying about 2000 he wont be able to cry about 2004 get over it already GORE LOST now we have an weak indecisive senator trying to become president. In the last 2 weeks his campaign has taken to saying anything that they think will scare voter a secret reserve call up a secret plan to reinstate the draft I hope the Dummydrats keep it going it is fun watching Kerry drop in the polls as more and more Americans realize what a hollow shell Kerry really is devoid of any real ideas for this countries future

Posted by: wpnsgy at September 20, 2004 10:20 PM

Abel

I would like to know why you consider a FOREIGN NEWS STATION AS A LEGITMATE SOURCE FOR YOUR INFORMATION about voting in America. The BBC has been caught lying on several occasions.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 20, 2004 10:41 PM

d.jones,
What happened to the documents you reviewed? You know , the phony documents? I guess that you missed something, better luck next time.

Posted by: Wayne at September 20, 2004 10:43 PM

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 20, 2004 12:29 PM

Now you are an expert on whether the President read the 9/11 report?

Calamity, if GW JR read the 911 Commission reports why hasnt' he completed implementation. He was also aware of the threat by Osama Bin Laden to invade America, why didn't he prevent that?

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at September 21, 2004 12:06 AM

wpnsgy,
The problem is and has been that some Americans are unaware regarding what really happened in Florida during the Presidential election of 2000. I regard this BLOG as a place where Americans may get pertinent information if they want to. There's really no excuse anymore for not knowing what really happened in November 2000. You pro-Bushites are another matter and although I may direct my POSTs to you, I don't really do them for your benefit. I fully recognize that your minds are totally closed and unable to learn anything new. But thanks anyway for taking the time to read my POSTs.

Your condensed POST follows:

"Abel is so busy crying about 2000 he wont be able to cry about 2004 get over it already GORE LOST now we have an weak indecisive senator trying to become president. In the last 2 weeks his campaign has taken to saying anything that they think will scare voter a secret reserve call up a secret plan to reinstate the draft I hope the Dummydrats keep it going it is fun watching Kerry drop in the polls as more and more Americans realize what a hollow shell Kerry really is devoid of any real ideas for this countries future"
Posted by: wpnsgy at September 20, 2004 10:20 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 21, 2004 02:28 AM

Abel,

That was a nice article but it ignores several points.

Friday, December 1, 2000—Hundreds of felons cast votes illegally At least 445 Florida felons voted illegally on Nov. 7, casting another cloud over a disputed presidential election already mired in legal challenges, a Herald investigation has found. The tainted votes -- found in a review of nearly half a million votes cast in 12 Florida counties -- provide evidence that the presidential race was influenced by thousands of ineligible voters. Nearly six million voters in Florida's 67 counties cast ballots. They also point out the failure of Florida's multimillion-dollar effort to prevent election fraud by eliminating dead and illegal voters from the registration rolls. "This just goes to show that the most expensive voting equipment in the world is worthless when the voting rolls are that filthy," said Deborah Phillips, president of the nonprofit Voting Integrity Project in Arlington, Va. "It's just an invitation to lower the integrity of the election." TWO KEY COUNTIES The majority of the illegal votes -- 330 -- were cast in Palm Beach and Duval counties, which decided not to participate in the statewide effort this year to purge felons, dead people and double registrants from the rolls. Miami Herald

Tuesday, November 7, 2000— Non-citizens vote with "Clinton card"? A mailer signed by Bill Clinton provided unofficial, paper "voter identification cards" to unregistered non-citizens in California, increasing the potential for rampant voter fraud today in the battleground state with the most electoral votes. A 20-year-old Guatemalan legally residing in Los Angeles County received the "Clinton card" just three days before the election. The California Democratic Party, which paid for the mailer, said yesterday that information about recipients was taken from voter files. Such files are open to candidates and political parties for campaign purposes. However, WorldNetDaily today confirmed that the woman is not registered to vote and therefore does not have a voter file, raising serious questions as to the party's information source. The Guatemalan woman and her mother, both of whom wish to remain anonymous, have struggled to obtain U.S. citizenship through the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the better part of decade, but to no avail. Surprised to have received the mailer congratulating her for registering to vote, the young woman contacted WND. World Net Daily article

Tuesday, November 14, 2000—Marquette U students voted more than once, survey finds Freshman says he did it to draw attention to 'screwed up' system Of the 174 Marquette students who said they voted more than once, 95 said they voted both by absentee ballots from their home state and also in Wisconsin. Forty-one said they voted twice in Wisconsin, 25 said they voted three times in Wisconsin and 13 said they voted four or more times in Wisconsin. McGraw, the student editor, said the multiple voting occurred at three polling places: the university's Alumni Memorial Union, the Highland Park Housing Complex and Grand Avenue Middle School. McGraw stressed that all three sites were operated by the City of Milwaukee Election Commission. "They said they saw the system was being run poorly, wanted to show how easily it could be abused and how it needed to be reformed," McGraw said. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article

Thursday, November 9, 2000—INS . Backlog Reduction Program. Repeats 1996 . Citizenship USA. Scandal: INS Examiners Given Extra 40 Hours Paid Time Off For Rushing Naturalization Based on discussions with an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) source, Judicial Watch said today that the Florida District of the INS has engaged in a systematic program of rushing aliens through the naturalization process to meet INS headquarters " goals" by October 1, 1999 and October 1, 2000. In Florida, a new citizen can register to vote up to October 10th. An INS source told Judicial Watch that the program is nearly identical to the now infamous 1996 "Citizenship USA" program, wherein thousands of aliens—some with criminal backgrounds—were improperly and illegally rushed through the naturalization process in order to obtain Democratic votes for the presidential election. The Florida INS effort has been termed the "Backlog Reduction Program,"—a neutral, bureaucratic-sounding title designed to lower the program's visibility with the media and the general public. INS examiners and clerks who met or exceeded headquarters goals and quotas for the program were rewarded with various types of bonuses, including an extra 40 hours of paid time off. Judicial Watch has also learned that, as part of this program, non-English speakers have had naturalization interviews illegally conducted in the alien's native language, as well as a case where an alien without any residence, family or business ties in the US was naturalized only three days after returning to the US from an 11 - ½ month absence from the country. Judicial Watch article

Wednesday, November 15, 2000—Missing Voting Mechanism Recovered: Police Say Florida Democrat Had a "Votamatic" in His Car Several days after presidential votes were tallied in what has become the hotbed of Florida's post-election confusion, police in Palm Beach County confiscated a ballot-box mechanism from the car of a well-known local Democrat. The mechanism, called a " Votamatic," did not contain any ballots. It's a device used on some types of ballot boxes to punch votes through ballot cards, which are then tallied by computers....Slosberg, a 53-year-old resident of nearby Boca Raton who owns a handbag company, recently won a seat in the state Legislature amid allegations he tried to buy his election....Elected After a Recount Slosberg won his new seat during a heated and extremely close election....In the primary election, Slosberg had barely squeaked past Levine. He reportedly had 50.5 percent of the votes to Levine's 49.5 percent. Slosberg was declared the winner after a recount of the votes. ABC News article

Friday, November 17, 2000. Hundreds of Overseas Ballots Rejected More than 1,000 overseas absentee ballots were thrown out Friday as Republicans complained of a coordinated challenge by Democrats, particularly against ballots from military personnel. In some counties, half or nearly all of the ballots were rejected, many of them military ballots that apparently didn't have postmarks. Orange County, for example, rejected 117 of its 147 overseas ballots. "The party of the man who wants to be the next commander-in-chief is trying to throw out the votes of the men and women he will be commanding," charged Jim Post, a Republican lawyer in Duval County, where 107 ballots were rejected....Earlier this week, Mark Herron, a Tallahassee lawyer helping shepherd Democratic presidential election lawsuits through the local courts, sent a five-page letter to Democratic attorneys throughout Florida giving them tips on how to lodge protests against overseas ballots.

These are just a few articles of the thousands that appeared after the 2000 election that the Democrats want to ignore. Voter fraud was rampant in that election and it will be again this year, the paper trail usually leads to the Democrats so let's get all the facts out there.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 21, 2004 01:42 PM

OK IT IS 2004 LET CONCERN OURSELFS WITH THE ELECTION AT HAND. HAND RINGER WHO CAN NOT LET GO OF 2000 HAVE NO ISSUE ITS 2004. AL GORE IS NOT THE PRESIDENT. HE WILL NEVER BE BECAUSE, G.W. BUSH WON. I AM HAPPY YOU KEEP HARPING ON 2000 WHILE G.W. BUSH RISES IN THE POLES. THE ONLY IMPORTANT THING IS THE WAR ON TERROR, IF THAT IS NOT WON, ALL OTHER ISSUES WILL NOT MATTER. SO KEEP UP THE 2000 ELECTION AND WE WHO VOTE FOR G.W. BUSH AND WILL LAUGH ALL THE WAY TO THE POLLS IN NOVEMBER. J.F.K. IS NOT UP TO THE JOB, I WOULD NOT TRUST HIM TO PROTECT THE U.S.A.

Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at September 21, 2004 04:44 PM

Jim Rodkey,
I hear you. You are saying that those summarized "ignored points" legalized the stealing of the 2000 Florida Presidential election from the American people. And like always, the final conclusion is that it's the Democrat's fault. It's the same old story, the Republicans still refuse to accept any responsibility for anything negative that happens. I hear you. It's always the Democrat's fault. I don't believe you are interested in considering any serious notion of fixing the problems that we have in our country. OK! Go back to sleep and continue on with your dreams.

Your condensed post follows:

"...These are just a few articles of the thousands that appeared after the 2000 election that the Democrats want to ignore. Voter fraud was rampant in that election and it will be again this year, the paper trail usually leads to the Democrats so let's get all the facts out there."
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 21, 2004 01:42 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 21, 2004 11:00 PM

wpnsgy,
Let me simply repeat, "The problem is and has been that some Americans are unaware regarding what really happened in Florida during the Presidential election of 2000. It's really most unfortunate when foreigners are more aware about what goes on in our country than we are. In any case, like I have already said, "I regard this BLOG as a place where Americans may get pertinent information if they want to." There's really no excuse anymore for not knowing what really happened in November 2000. You pro-Bushites are another matter and although I may direct my POSTs to you, I don't really do them for your benefit. I fully recognize that your minds are totally closed and unable to learn anything new. But thanks anyway for taking the time to read my POSTs." The US Civil Rights Commission Hearings Conclusion follows:

Conclusion

The Commission found that the problems Florida had during the 2000 presidential election were serious and not isolated. In many cases, they were foreseeable and should have been prevented. The failure to do so resulted in an extraordinarily high and inexcusable level of disenfranchisement, with a significantly disproportionate impact on African American voters. The causes include the following: (1) a general failure of leadership from those with responsibility for ensuring elections are properly planned and executed; (2) inadequate resources for voter education, training of poll workers, and for Election Day trouble-shooting and problem solving; (3) inferior voting equipment and/or ballot design; (4) failure to anticipate and account for the expected high volumes of voters, including inexperienced voters; (5) a poorly designed and even more poorly executed purge system; and (6) a resource allocation system that often left poorer counties, which often were counties with the highest percentage of black voters, adversely affected.

Your stupid post follows:

"Abel is so busy crying about 2000 he wont be able to cry about 2004 get over it already GORE LOST now we have an weak indecisive senator trying to become president. In the last 2 weeks his campaign has taken to saying anything that they think will scare voter a secret reserve call up a secret plan to reinstate the draft I hope the Dummydrats keep it going it is fun watching Kerry drop in the polls as more and more Americans realize what a hollow shell Kerry really is devoid of any real ideas for this countries future"
Posted by: wpnsgy at September 20, 2004 10:20 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 22, 2004 12:05 PM

Ok another 2 Americans had their heads cut off. What is it going to take for liberals to see that we need to be united in crushing these people. They get their resolve from our own dissension. Don't tell me the only reason they are doing it is we started it. That is just not true. We finally stood up to these animals, now we are in for the fight of our lives and you people want to talk about the 2000 election. It makes me sick.

I hope South Carolina is successful. My hunch is their would be a mass migration and I would be one of the first ones to go. Man their are some ignorant people in this country.

Posted by: Chris, OH at September 22, 2004 06:51 PM

Calamity Jane,
I hate to tell you this but I have always known, ever since I returned from Germany, that foreign news sources were more "truthful," "up front," and "up to date," in comparison to the latest news that we have here in the USA. Look, they always show all the news, regardless, in other countries, not just the nice and proper stories. They even show the "beheadings" that are now taking place in Iraq. We don't do that, do we? Tell me, Why are we afraid to even show our honored dead as they are returned from Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you really believe that Americans are better informed than Europeans? We need to make some fundamental changes in our country regarding the way we handle news. We must make the necessary changes if we want to improve our Democracy and make it better and stronger. Needless to say, Europeans know more about our own elections than we do. That may not be a nice thing to say but unfortunately, it's true. For whatever reason, Europeans love to read much more than most Americans. We need to improve on reading and do much more of that than we are currently doing too!

Your post follows:

"Abel I would like to know why you consider a FOREIGN NEWS STATION AS A LEGITMATE SOURCE FOR YOUR INFORMATION about voting in America. The BBC has been caught lying on several occasions."
Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 20, 2004 10:41 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 22, 2004 09:24 PM

Abel

You said that the Republicans stole the election without any evidence. I showed you that the Democrats were involved in voter fraud with evidence. You gave allegations, I gave quotes and facts supported by direct quotes. You choose to ignore them. There were problems in the election. Lot's of them. There will be problems this year as well. There always is. History prooves that the Democrats hands are far dirtier that the Republicans. I could really care less what your unsupported opinions are if you don't have any evidence to back up your claims. You're sounding more and more like D. Jones and I expected more from you than that.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 22, 2004 11:16 PM

TO: ABLE

SORRY YOU CAN'T GET OVER IT. EVERY RECOUNT SHOWED PRESIDENT BUSH WON. EVERY COUNTY THAT HAD PROPLEMS WERE RUN BY DEM'S. IT'S OVER AND WILL NOT MATTER THIS TIME BECAUSE BUSH WILL WIN BIG IN FLORIDA AND THE REST OF THE COUNTRY. THE REASON HE WILL WIN IS BECAUSE THE WAR ON TERROR IS THE BIG ISSUE, NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WILL TRUST JOHN KERRY (JFK) TO PROTECT THE U.S.A. BUT KEEP HARPPING ON IT AND WE WILL JUST WATCH G.W. BUSH RISE IN THE POLES. G. W. BUSH IS BY ALL STANDARDS A GOOD MAN, HAS CORE VALUES. YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH HIS DISSIONS AND VOTE FOR J.F.K. BUT AS MEN GO G. W. BUSH IS HEAD AND SHOULDERS OVER J.F.K. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME SOME THING TO RESPOND TOO.

Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at September 23, 2004 03:38 AM

A very Interesting article that is worth reading. You people stop beating up on Calamity!! Then again, what the hell..... go ahead. LOL!!!

Wednesday, September 22, 2004
If America were Iraq, What would it be Like?

President Bush said Tuesday that the Iraqis are refuting the pessimists and implied that things are improving in that country.

What would America look like if it were in Iraq's current situation? The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number.

Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.

And what if those deaths occurred all over the country, including in the capital of Washington, DC, but mainly above the Mason Dixon line, in Boston, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco?

What if the grounds of the White House and the government buildings near the Mall were constantly taking mortar fire? What if almost nobody in the State Department at Foggy Bottom, the White House, or the Pentagon dared venture out of their buildings, and considered it dangerous to go over to Crystal City or Alexandria?

What if all the reporters for all the major television and print media were trapped in five-star hotels in Washington, DC and New York, unable to move more than a few blocks safely, and dependent on stringers to know what was happening in Oklahoma City and St. Louis? What if the only time they ventured into the Midwest was if they could be embedded in Army or National Guard units?

There are estimated to be some 25,000 guerrillas in Iraq engaged in concerted acts of violence. What if there were private armies totalling 275,000 men, armed with machine guns, assault rifles (legal again!), rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar launchers, hiding out in dangerous urban areas of cities all over the country? What if they completely controlled Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Denver and Omaha, such that local police and Federal troops could not go into those cities?

What if, during the past year, the Secretary of State (Aqilah Hashemi), the President (Izzedine Salim), and the Attorney General (Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim) had all been assassinated?

What if all the cities in the US were wracked by a crime wave, with thousands of murders, kidnappings, burglaries, and carjackings in every major city every year?

What if the Air Force routinely (I mean daily or weekly) bombed Billings, Montana, Flint, Michigan, Watts in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Anacostia in Washington, DC, and other urban areas, attempting to target "safe houses" of "criminal gangs", but inevitably killing a lot of children and little old ladies?

What if, from time to time, the US Army besieged Virginia Beach, killing hundreds of armed members of the Christian Soldiers? What if entire platoons of the Christian Soldiers militia holed up in Arlington National Cemetery, and were bombarded by US Air Force warplanes daily, destroying thousands of graves and even pulverizing the Vietnam Memorial over on the Mall? What if the National Council of Churches had to call for a popular march of thousands of believers to converge on the National Cathedral to stop the US Army from demolishing it to get at a rogue band of the Timothy McVeigh Memorial Brigades?

What if there were virtually no commercial air traffic in the country? What if many roads were highly dangerous, especially Interstate 95 from Richmond to Washington, DC, and I-95 and I-91 up to Boston? If you got on I-95 anywhere along that over 500-mile stretch, you would risk being carjacked, kidnapped, or having your car sprayed with machine gun fire.

What if no one had electricity for much more than 10 hours a day, and often less? What if it went off at unpredictable times, causing factories to grind to a halt and air conditioning to fail in the middle of the summer in Houston and Miami? What if the Alaska pipeline were bombed and disabled at least monthly? What if unemployment hovered around 40%?

What if veterans of militia actions at Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma City bombing were brought in to run the government on the theory that you need a tough guy in these times of crisis?

What if municipal elections were cancelled and cliques close to the new "president" quietly installed in the statehouses as "governors?" What if several of these governors (especially of Montana and Wyoming) were assassinated soon after taking office or resigned when their children were taken hostage by guerrillas?

What if the leader of the European Union maintained that the citizens of the United States are, under these conditions, refuting pessimism and that freedom and democracy are just around the corner?

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004 Let's Send Bush To Texas!

Posted by: d. jones at September 23, 2004 07:58 AM

Jim Rodkey,
Jim, I never said anything, except repeat what the facts tell. Look, if you don't believe me, look at what the Conclusions of the US Civil Rights Commission Hearings Report states. It follows:

Conclusion

The Commission found that the problems Florida had during the 2000 presidential election were serious and not isolated. In many cases, they were foreseeable and should have been prevented. The failure to do so resulted in an extraordinarily high and inexcusable level of disenfranchisement, with a significantly disproportionate impact on African American voters. The causes include the following: (1) a general failure of leadership from those with responsibility for ensuring elections are properly planned and executed; (2) inadequate resources for voter education, training of poll workers, and for Election Day trouble-shooting and problem solving; (3) inferior voting equipment and/or ballot design; (4) failure to anticipate and account for the expected high volumes of voters, including inexperienced voters; (5) a poorly designed and even more poorly executed purge system; and (6) a resource allocation system that often left poorer counties, which often were counties with the highest percentage of black voters, adversely affected.

Hopefully you know the meaning of the word "disenfranchisement" and Please, don't give me any credit for what the US Civil Rights Commission found to be true--I had absolutely nothing to do with it. All I'm saying is that George W. Bush, his cohorts and 5 justices of the US Supreme Court stole the election from the American people because Al Gore actually did win and he never was allowed to serve. That's a picture of reality and if you are happy with it--so be it.

Your post follows:

"Abel You said that the Republicans stole the election without any evidence. I showed you that the Democrats were involved in voter fraud with evidence. You gave allegations, I gave quotes and facts supported by direct quotes. You choose to ignore them. There were problems in the election. Lot's of them. There will be problems this year as well. There always is. History prooves that the Democrats hands are far dirtier that the Republicans. I could really care less what your unsupported opinions are if you don't have any evidence to back up your claims. You're sounding more and more like D. Jones and I expected more from you than that."
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 22, 2004 11:16 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 23, 2004 11:50 AM

Bruec,
I have already answered your statement regarding the "recounts" that the Republicans did. Look for it if you're interested. Briefly, I said that the Republicans kept "recounting" the same ballots over and over again getting the same "answer" but they failed to count the ballots that were never counted--not even once. Face it, the Republicans stole the election from the American people and history will write it that way. The American people had nothing to do with the 2000 election as it was the US Supreme Court that voted 5 to 4 to stop the recount and select George W. Bush as President. As for trusting George W. Bush to protect the USA--you must be kidding. He has messed us up so completely that the whole world now regards us as a Rogue Nation. We are not safe anywhere anymore--even Mexico is now abusing Americans--the Headline of McAllen's The Monitor reads "REYNOSA NO LONGER SAFE, US CONSULATE WARNS." You know, of course, that Reynosa borders US. I'm 71 years old and I have never before read this kind of headline in McAllen's "The Monitor"

Your post follows:

"TO: ABLE SORRY YOU CAN'T GET OVER IT. EVERY RECOUNT SHOWED PRESIDENT BUSH WON. EVERY COUNTY THAT HAD PROPLEMS WERE RUN BY DEM'S. IT'S OVER AND WILL NOT MATTER THIS TIME BECAUSE BUSH WILL WIN BIG IN FLORIDA AND THE REST OF THE COUNTRY. THE REASON HE WILL WIN IS BECAUSE THE WAR ON TERROR IS THE BIG ISSUE, NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WILL TRUST JOHN KERRY (JFK) TO PROTECT THE U.S.A. BUT KEEP HARPPING ON IT AND WE WILL JUST WATCH G.W. BUSH RISE IN THE POLES. G. W. BUSH IS BY ALL STANDARDS A GOOD MAN, HAS CORE VALUES. YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH HIS DISSIONS AND VOTE FOR J.F.K. BUT AS MEN GO G. W. BUSH IS HEAD AND SHOULDERS OVER J.F.K. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME SOME THING TO RESPOND TOO."
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at September 23, 2004 03:38 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 23, 2004 12:11 PM

Abel,

I'm familiar with the the Commission report. Show me where, in the report, that this was the fault of Republicans. I don't know how it works in Florida, but in Pennsylvanis, each county is resposnisble for setting up the voting centers. I live in a srong Republican town with mostly Republican representatives. They set up the voting machines and they staff the voting centers. All of the problems with the voting in Florida accourred in Demoncratic counties. The ballot was designed by the Democrats in that state. There were recounts and recounts and more recounts and every recount provided the same basic information. George Bush won in Florida. As the investigation has continued, there was evidence produced of 48,000 double votes. People who voted in New York and in Florida. 68 percent of which voted Democrat. 14 per cent Republican. I've also cited for you, in a previous post, several accounts of voter fraud attributed directly to the Democratic Party including an incident of a Democrat who had a voting machine in the trunk of his car. Overwhelming, the Democrats were trying to steal the election before the recounts and not just in Florida. Clinton's notorious instant registration letter to illigal immigrants, 2,000 people who voted in Illinois who were dead, the list goes on. It didn't work. They lost. I might not like it, but that's what happened.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 23, 2004 01:13 PM

Chris,
You say, "We finally stood up to these animals, now we are in for the fight of our lives and you people want to talk about the 2000 election." Frankly, I wasn't aware that we went to Iraq to stand up to "these animals." So we now have one more reason for being in Iraq. Your statement, "I hope South Carolina is successful. My hunch is their would be a mass migration and I would be one of the first ones to go." confuses me and I'm curious, What's that about? Please clarify.

Your post follows:

"Ok another 2 Americans had their heads cut off. What is it going to take for liberals to see that we need to be united in crushing these people. They get their resolve from our own dissension. Don't tell me the only reason they are doing it is we started it. That is just not true. We finally stood up to these animals, now we are in for the fight of our lives and you people want to talk about the 2000 election. It makes me sick.
I hope South Carolina is successful. My hunch is their would be a mass migration and I would be one of the first ones to go. Man their are some ignorant people in this country."
Posted by: Chris, OH at September 22, 2004 06:51 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 23, 2004 02:20 PM

Jim Rodkey
You say, in your Post by: Jim Rodkey at September 23, 2004 01:13 PM, "I'm familiar with the the Commission report. Show me where, in the report, that this was the fault of Republicans. Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 23, 2004 01:13 PM" Well, if you're familiar with the responsibilities of State Officials, you'd know that all the things that went wrong in Florida were the responsibilities of the Republican State Officials including George W. Bush's brother Jed Bush. Why did you think that the US Civil Rights Commission Hearings had these same state officials testifying? Of course, they claimed, like Repuclicans always claim, that it wasn't their fault. According to the Republicans, it was nobody's fault. It just happened, you know, like the Abu Graib POW scandal case. It was only a few bad apples at the bottom--enlisted men. No higher up were at fault. They never are when Republicans are on top. Reread number six (6) and maybe you'll get it. (6) a resource allocation system that often left poorer counties, which often were counties with the highest percentage of black voters, adversely affected.

Conclusion

The Commission found that the problems Florida had during the 2000 presidential election were serious and not isolated. In many cases, they were foreseeable and should have been prevented. The failure to do so resulted in an extraordinarily high and inexcusable level of disenfranchisement, with a significantly disproportionate impact on African American voters. The causes include the following: (1) a general failure of leadership from those with responsibility for ensuring elections are properly planned and executed; (2) inadequate resources for voter education, training of poll workers, and for Election Day trouble-shooting and problem solving; (3) inferior voting equipment and/or ballot design; (4) failure to anticipate and account for the expected high volumes of voters, including inexperienced voters; (5) a poorly designed and even more poorly executed purge system; and (6) a resource allocation system that often left poorer counties, which often were counties with the highest percentage of black voters, adversely affected.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 23, 2004 02:37 PM

ABLE

I KNOW YOU ANSWERED IT, IT'S JUST NOT TRUE. BUT THANK YOU FOR TRYING. IF LIBERALS KEEP HARPPING ON 2000 THEN THEY WILL BE STILL HARPPING IN 2008. LOOK AT THE POLLS EVEN NEW YORK IS CLOSE NOW. AGAIN WAR ON TERROR IS THE ONLY ISSUE THAT MATTERS AND J.F.K. IS NOT UP TO WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR.

Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at September 23, 2004 05:18 PM

Mentally disabled you continue to attack provide no facts. everyone knows there were problems in Fla. But you and other liberals continue to blame republicans for the problems when the areas that had the problems were run by dummycrats. It was Gore that only wanted selective recounts worked to block the absentee ballots from Military members overseas and the newest scandal the large number of dummycrats that voted in NY and Fla. Do not blame the inept action of the democrat election officials in Fla on any but those officials. Last PLEASE GET OVER IT. it is done and over with You now have to deal with the Moron your party has nominated for 2004

Posted by: wpnsgy` at September 23, 2004 07:11 PM

Allegations, Abel, not direct condemnation of a right-wing conservative plot to overthrow the government. It's easy to make allegations, ask Dan Rather. Turning those allegations into facts are another story. I guess it was New York Republicans who registered as Democrats and then went Florida and registered as Democrats so they could vote twice in the election in their attempt to steal the Presidency. I guess it was a Republican who cleverly disguised himself as Al Gore and stopped the count of our military votes. I guess it was a Republican disguised as a Democrat who had a voting machine stuck in the trunk of his car. It must also have been a Republican cleverly posing as a Democrat who created the ballot that caused all of the problems with the election in Florida in the first place. The truth is that actual Democrats, were caught red-handed and named in actual incidents deliberately attempting to commit voter fraud. Not allegations or suspicions, actual incidents. Get over it. I guess Mayor Daily of Chicago was an honest politician because he was a Democrat and all the evidence of voter fraud in his term was just a misunderstanding. I guess it's getting a little hot over at the DNC right now in their attempt at co-ordinating a smear with CBS news. That's the allegation. Mapes called Joe Lockhart. That's not an allegation, that's a fact. That's collusion. That's a criminal offense. The forging of military records is a federal offense. But it's more than forging it's falsification of documents. Senator Harkin introduced John Kerry in his home state with those documents in his hand and held them up as proof that The President lied. This doesn't look good, especially if we are going to take your path of allegations and not look at the facts.

You want the time line that co-ordinates the Democrats OPERATION: FORTUNATE SON with the CBS story. More allegations. Not necessarily fact, just allegations and according to you allegations are enough to convict a person. By your method and rational. Senator Kerry is guilty of co-ordinating an attempt to overthrow a federal election with falsified military documents and if we judge him by the same standards you attack the President with and the same standards you continually attack Republicans with, Senator Kerry will be spending the next 10 years in a federal prison.

Show me one document where the Republicans are specifically named as deliberately interferring with the election. You don't want to attempt to do that though because then you will have to admit you are wrong and that would destroy your neat little image that the President and Republicans are an evil force. I'm really tired of the liberal nonsense of making allegations they can't back up with facts. Today your Senator called Prime Minister Allawi a puppet of the Bush Administration. This is the man who you want to lead us in doplomacy. A Kerry spokesman accused the President's team of actually writing his speech. The liberals in this country are so afraid that maybe George Bush is right. Maybe the war in Iraq was the right war at the right time and when the insurgents are stopped their will be a big step towards peace in the Middle East. Then they would have to admit that sometimes war in necessary and good people who rise above the call of most people sacrificed their all to provide freedom for a nation in turmoil. We would have to stop calling them war criminals and acknowledge them as the heroes they really are. As I've said, I'm sick of the allegations, if you don't have documented proof that gives names and specific incidents, then your doing nothing more than being a puppet for the liberal agenda. You can join with the ranks of the Kerry Hollywood Supporters like Streisand and Whoopi who don't think that Communism would be a bad thing for this country. Want the actual quotes, I can give them to you. You can stand with the George Soros' of this world who want to legalize drugs. You can align yourself with the Michael Moore's who denegrate American's, slandering them. I choose to take a different course, one based on facts, actual incidents, not based on ridiculous allegations.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 24, 2004 12:39 AM

WPNSGY

YOU GO, TELL IT LIKE IT IS. BUSH WON IN 2000 AND WILL WIN IN 2004. IF THEY DON'T GET OVER IT LET THEM STEW.

THE WAR ON TERROR IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE AND WE HAVE TO WIN.

Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at September 24, 2004 01:50 AM

I have to ask this question?? If the 2000 election was so clearly won, why is there so much controversy every day in the news about these darn voting machines??

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 24, 2004 02:02 PM

Abel,

I go on the the premise that if we had let Bush Sr. go another 4 years he would have held Saddam accountable and this would not even be an issue. Now we have extremists cutting the heads off of innocent civilians. Where is the outcry from the left? Where is the condemnation? None. You guys are still crying about 2000. That makes you irrelevant. You are not part of the solution. You are part of the problem. My comment about South Carolina while tougue in cheek, simply has to do with a group of people who recognized that if our country were not founded on Judeo-Christian principles we would not have the freedoms that the people on the left abuse today. There is a group of people who want to form a Christian Government in SC and secede from the Union. I know it is a bit over the top. However, I understand the premise.

I wish the left would quit their whining and get down to protecting our nation.

Posted by: Chris, OH at September 24, 2004 07:06 PM

Alreadty the left is being investigated for voter fraud in Ohio. What a joke.

Posted by: Chris, OH at September 24, 2004 07:08 PM

CHRIS
re:VOTER FRAUD (YOUR RIGHT)

DEM'S HAVE ALWAYS VOTED 10 TIMES MORE DEAD THEN THE REPUB. IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR SO LONG NO ONE EVEN BLINKS AT IT. WHO IS ALWAYS FOUND THROWING BALLOTS IN TO THE SAN FRANSICO BAY, WHO ALWAY IS FOUND WITH BALLOTS IN THEIR TRUNK. WITH ALMOST NO EXCEPTION IT'S DEM'S.

SO AS USUAL DEM'S ACCUSE REPUB'S OF VOTER FRAUD AND YELL AND SCREEM, WHILE THEY HIDE BALLOTS VOTE THE DEAD WITH IMPUNITY. DO BAD THINGS, ACCUSE US OF DOING THOSE BAD THINGS AND ACT INDIGNENT. BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS. LIBERALS WILL STOP AT NOTHING TO WIN, ACCUSE LAURA BUSH OF MURDER, ACCUSE PRESIDENT BUSH OF COCAINE PROBLEMS, MAKE DUI A FELONY, ACCUSE PRESIDENT BUSH OF BEING AWOL,OR OF BEING A LIER,AND THEN YELL AND SCREEM WHEN COMMRADS OF J.F.K. CLAIM HE IS UNFIT FOR COMAND. I DON'T KNOW IF THE SWIFT BOAT VET ARE RIGHT BUT IT MAKES MORE SENCE THEN 3 PURPLE HART AND 2 DISTINGISHED SERVICE METAL IN 4 MONTHS. 8MM MOVIES THAT WERE REINACTMENTS OF SOME OF HIS MISSIONS, WHO DOES THAT? LIBERALS ARE MASTERS OF OVERSTATEMENT, AN ACCIDENT IS MURDER, MISSING A DOCTORS APT IS BEING AWOL. THEY IGNORE THE EVIDENCE LIE UNTIL THEIR ARE BLUE IN THE FACE. IT HAS WORKED IN THE PAST. WE WILL SEE HOW LONG THE MESSAGE THE SKY IS FALLING WORKS. HOPE THAT WE CAN SAY IT STOPS NOVEMBER 2ND 2004. VOTE FOR G.W. BUSH A GOOD PERSON WITH A SOLID CORE.

Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at September 25, 2004 12:55 AM

"I have to ask this question?? If the 2000 election was so clearly won, why is there so much controversy every day in the news about these darn voting machines??"

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 24, 2004 02:02 PM

"was appointed President by the Supreme Court."

Posted by: d. jones at September 2, 2004 10:59 AM

"He had the overconfidence to attack America coincidentally shortly after GW JR. was appointed, and yes I say APPOINTED by the U.S. Supreme Court"

Posted by: d. jones at September 6, 2004 12:41 AM

"you have to be completely insane to think of GW JR as a legitimate President of the U.S. you are as dum as Pain-In-The-A**"

Posted by: d. jones at September 10, 2004 12:13 AM

"the VIP cards in several electronic voting machines in Florida were mysteriously changed at 2am in the morning altering the election results, and is now undergoing FBI investigations."

Posted by: d. jones at September 13, 2004 02:36 AM

"Your Cocaine Head GW JR will not get re-elected I can guarantee you that!" (claiming bush was actually elected the first time around.. hmmm?)

Posted by: d. jones at September 14, 2004 12:43 PM

"The Supreme Court Appointed PresiDunce if failing miserably! I would be very suprised if he were re-elected."(claiming he wasn't 'elected', but yet claims he won't be 're-elected'?)

Posted by: d. jones at September 14, 2004 01:23 PM

"I know its only due to election time, and will fade quickly if he is re-elected." (once again, acknowledging bush was ELECTED)

Posted by: d. jones at September 16, 2004 01:22 PM

"The 2000/2004 Election Question Will Continue.."

Posted by: d. jones at September 20, 2004 01:17 AM

"AMERICA NEVER VOTED GW JR IN OFFICE"

Posted by: d. jones at September 21, 2004 12:55 AM

"he undisputed facts that point towards GW JR cheating in the 2000 election"

"even if he is a Supreme Court Appointed Dummy"

Posted by: d. jones at September 21, 2004 03:46 AM

"[Kerry] stands for WINNING AN ELECTION WITHOUT CHEATING!"

Posted by: d. jones at August 18, 2004 09:35 PM

"Supreme Court Appointed"

Posted by: d. jones at September 14, 2004 06:21 AM

"The Physcotic Supreme Appointed President"

Posted by: d. jones at September 24, 2004 10:31 PM

Just wondering, but does anyone think D. Jones is obsessed with the 2000 election? These were just a few of the quotes I found in about 5 minutes worth of searching on 2 boards.... there's plenty of more of them...

Posted by: Conservatism at September 25, 2004 01:37 AM

Bruce, politics can get ugly even on our side, but this is about core values for me. I believe in the Republican platform and strongly oppose the Democratic platform. I think the Democratic platform unnopposed leads to destruction and a weakened nation, with no moral compass, no work ethic and no line of defense from enemies who would like to destroy us.

Posted by: Chris, OH at September 25, 2004 09:47 AM

"Despite John Kerry's recent claim that the Kerry-Edwards ticket has the best hair, Wahl's survey found that the majority of Americans overwhelmingly voted for Bush's hair over Kerry's (Bush -- 51 percent; Kerry -- 30 percent; neither -- 10 percent; don't know -- 9 percent.)"

Looks like Kerry is in trouble... HAHAHAHA

Posted by: Conservatism at September 25, 2004 01:46 PM

CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL

President Bush this week reached a symbolic milestone, overtaking Democratic challenger John Kerry in New Hampshire and Iowa to claim more than 300 electoral votes in CNN's weekly Electoral College scorecard.

If the election were held today, Bush would receive 301 electoral votes to Kerry's 237, according to a CNN survey based on state polling as well as interviews with campaign aides and independent analysts. A candidate wins the election with 270 electoral votes, regardless of the popular vote.

Uh-Oh! hahaha

Posted by: Conservatism at September 25, 2004 01:53 PM

John Kerry, Criminal
By Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 17, 2004

For years it was said that Jane Fonda committed treason when she went to Vietnam in July 1972. In the late 1990s, with increasingly widespread use of the Internet, the charge became a staple of discussion by conservatives and veterans. However, their belief in Fonda?s criminality was not substantiated. We undertook to do just that, and laid out the definitive case against her in our 2002 book, "Aid and Comfort": Jane Fonda In North Vietnam.

A current parallel has arisen in connection with the presidential candidacy of John Kerry. For the past several weeks, the Internet has been ablaze with charges?as yet unexplained, let alone legally substantiated? that by traveling to Paris for meetings with the North Vietnamese communists and their Viet Cong allies in 1970, Kerry violated American criminal statutes. Indeed, one well-intentioned group, Patriot Petitions, has disseminated a petition to President of the Senate Richard Cheney, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and Attorney General John Ashcroft, seeking Kerry?s prosecution.

Just as Fonda?s critics turned out to have been correct about their gut feelings regarding her treasonable actions in North Vietnam, so, too, Kerry?s critics?who feel strongly that his trip violated the law, without quite knowing why?are correct.

The explanation of Kerry?s criminal behavior in Paris is some thirty-four years overdue.

Our major premise?the legal one?is that one federal statute makes it a crime for American citizens to have "intercourse" with the "enemy," while another federal statute similarly prohibits "intercourse" with "any foreign government."

Our minor premise?the factual one?is that John Kerry confessed to engaging in exactly that proscribed conduct.

Therefore, John Kerry is a criminal.

Kerry?s criminality has deep historical roots. Americans acted similarly even before the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, Article 28 of the American Articles of War of 1775 provided: "Whosoever belonging to the continental army, shall be convicted of holding correspondence with, or giving intelligence to, the enemy, shall suffer such punishment as by a general court-martial shall be ordered." The essence of this non-intercourse colonial statute has appeared in each subsequent military code since 1775.

Its modern embodiment is Title 10, Section 904 of the United States Code [Uniform Code of Military Justice], which provides:

Any person who . . . without proper authority, knowingly . . . communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly, shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

The meaning of this section?apart from the definition of "enemy," which in the early 1970s certainly included the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese (see Title 18, United States Code, Section 11)?has been interpreted in four appellate cases.

Edward S. Dickenson was a turncoat American POW who collaborated with the Chinese Communists in a prison camp during the Korean War. Upon his repatriation he was charged with violating Section 904?s predecessor. The court?s most important ruling was that at the time Dickenson committed the acts charged, even though his enlistment had expired (due to incarceration in the POW camp), he remained subject to military jurisdiction. This ruling was reinforced when Dickenson appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which noted that the defendant "had neither been discharged . . . nor had his military status been severed . . . . He was a soldier, subject to the rules, discipline and jurisdiction of the Army and squarely within the provisions of Article 2 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice . . . which provides as subject: "All persons belonging to a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their term of enlistment . . . .'? (Emphasis added).

Claude J. Batchelor (see Why Not Call It Treason?) was another Korean War collaborator. Upon his repatriation he, too, was charged with violating Section 904?s predecessor. One of Batchelor?s defenses was that he had no criminal intent. The United States Court of Military Appeals rejected that argument, holding that intent was not necessary for commission of the crime (unlike treason cases, where intent is an essential element).

A third Korean War collaborator was William H. Olson. In affirming his conviction, the Court of Military Appeals said this: "[I]f the accused was the instrument used by the enemy to spread propaganda against his own country, and he did so voluntarily, he has thereby aided the enemy?s cause within the meaning of the statute." (Emphasis added). The court then quoted the 1949 Manual for Courts-Martial for the proposition that "non-intercourse" has been the consistent interpretation of Section 904 and its predecessors:

Correspondence does not necessarily import a mutual exchange of communication. The law requires absolute non-intercourse, and any unauthorized communication, no matter what may be its tenor or intent, is here denounced. The prohibition lies against any method of communication whatsoever, and the offense is complete the moment the communication issues from the accused, whether it reaches its destination or not.

As to whether the charges of collaboration leveled against Olson were within the statute?s proscription, the court noted that "[I]t is certain that communications, collaboration, and intercourse with the enemy which results in a program of psychological warfare inimical to this country is within [the statute?s] fair meaning."

The fourth case, United States v. Johnson, arose during the Vietnam War. According to the United States Court of Military Appeals:

While on duty with the Marine Corps in Vietnam, the accused proceeded to Bangkok, Thailand, on authorized rest and recreation leave. When he did not return at its expiration, he was listed as being absent without leave. He was apprehended [and] returned him to Saigon. * * * In his statement, the accused described in detail his whereabouts during his unauthorized absence and acknowledged that he intended to travel across Thailand and Laos and into Vietnam with the intent to contact the Viet Cong or North Vietnamese regulars and talk with them "of certain moral responsibilities: (1) Duties to God; (2) duties to fellow man. In other words, I feel that it is the responsibility of all men to go out and make peace regardless of what sacrifices they may have to make and it is for this reason that I decided to go out and attempt to meet with the enemy and teach him something of Christianity and of moral responsibilities. * * * [Later, Johnson expressed to a government agent] his desire once more to contact the North Vietnamese in his crusade for peace and morality among the enemy. He was apprehended before he could begin his mission.

Charged with several crimes, including an attempt to violate Section 904?remember, Johnson never even reached the Vietnamese communists?his conviction was reversed by the Court of Military Appeals strictly on Miranda-like "failure to advise" grounds. The opinion, however, is clear that one can be charged with even an attempt to violate Section 904 without ever having consummated the crime.

The second federal statute for consideration is Title 18, United States Code, Section 953, known as the Logan Act:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Section 953 was at the core of Agee v. Muskie, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1980.

Rogue CIA employee Philip Agee (represented by Melvin L. Wulf, late head of the ACLU) successfully challenged a State Department regulation allowing for revocation of an American citizen?s passport because he had not yet been charged with a crime. However, certain aspects of the Agee case speak loudly about John Kerry?s criminal behavior. Agee, at that time the most outspoken and vicious opponent of CIA clandestine activities, proposed to the Iranian militants that they offer a deal to our government: return of the embassy hostages in exchange for all CIA files on its Iran operations since 1950.

On that basis, the government prepared a draft indictment which appears as an appendix to the court?s opinion.

The Grand Jury charges:

From on or about the 4th day of November 1979 until on or about the 24th day of December, 1979, (an Iranian), and (an Iranian), and a large group of other Iranians whose names are to the Grand Jury unknown, hereinafter referred to as "Iranian Terrorists", constituted a "foreign government" as defined by 18 U.S.C. s 11, in that they were a faction and body of insurgents within Iran, a country recognized by the United States and with which country the United States was at peace; that during the aforesaid period Philip Agee, herein charged as the defendant, a citizen of the United States, then in the vicinity of Hamburg, Germany, did, without authority of the United States, directly and indirectly carry on correspondence and intercourse with the aforesaid body of insurgents constituting a foreign government and with officers and agents thereof, with intent to influence the measures and conduct of said foreign government and of the officers and agents thereof in relation to disputes and controversies between said foreign government and the United States, and to defeat the measures of the United States in such disputes and controversies, in that within a few weeks before the 23rd day of December 1979, the said Philip Agee did communicate, correspond, and have intercourse with the aforementioned Iranian Terrorists by counseling, and suggesting to them, in relation to their dispute and controversy with the United States that they could prevail in their unlawful demands on the United States by forcing the United States contrary to the authority thereof, by extortion, to deliver into the possession of the aforesaid Iranian Terrorists constituting said foreign government, certain United States property, to wit, all records of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States (CIA) on CIA intelligence operations in Iran for the past 30 years, in return for the release by said Iranian Terrorists of upwards of 50 citizens of the United States who were duly accredited to the official staff of the United States Embassy in Tehran, Iran, and who were then being threatened with execution and being unlawfully held and confined within the United States Embassy at Tehran, Iran by force by said foreign government as hostages in its dispute and controversy with the United States; all in violation of 18 U.S.C. ss 953.

Given Title 10, Section 904 and Title 18, Section 953, there is no doubt whatsoever that intercourse with the enemy and intercourse with a foreign government with intent to "defeat the measures of" the United States constitute federal crimes.

There is also no doubt that under Dickenson, Batchelor, Olson and Johnson, respectively, reservists are subject to Section 904, criminal intent is not necessary for conviction, providing propaganda to the enemy can constitute commission of the crime, and even an unsuccessful attempt is punishable.

By logical extension, the same is true under Section 953 of the Logan Act, as the draft indictment of Philip Agee makes eminently clear.

Our major premise having been established, this leaves only our minor premise to be examined.

It has long been well known that in the early 1970s, the North Vietnamese and their southern Viet Cong allies maintained representatives in Paris, and that various American citizens?among them Jane Fonda?made pilgrimages to meet with them, absorb the current party line, and spread their communist propaganda.

In 1970, John Kerry was one of those pilgrims. When he went to Paris, he was a citizen of the United States. He was still a member of the United States Navy. And clearly he lacked any authority from the government to act on its behalf.

We do not have to speculate about Kerry?s activities in Paris because he openly admitted what he did there. During the question and answer period following his April 22, 1971 televised testimony before the Armed Services Committee of the United States Senate, Kerry said:

I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.

Even today, knowing what we know about the Vietnamese communists and about John Kerry, it is difficult to grasp the enormity of what he was confessing to. As an American citizen and a member of the United States Navy?while his former comrades and countless others were fighting and dying in Vietnam at the hands of Viet Cong guerillas and North Vietnamese regulars?Kerry consorted with the Viet Cong representative and discussed ("talked with," he euphemized) her "plan." That obscene plan included a trade: the return of our POWs for a withdrawal of American forces. As John O?Neill expressed in his important bestselling book Unfit For Command, ". . . America could have its POWs back only if we agreed that we lost, then surrendered, and then set a date to leave."

Kerry?s wartime trip to Paris was confirmed about six months ago by a campaign spokesman, who tossed it off as a mere "fact-finding" excursion.

Yet Kerry was apparently so impressed with the "facts" he found in company with the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese that a few months after his return from Paris he had the effrontery to urge the President of the United States to accept his communist hosts? plan for "peace" in Vietnam.

In sum, John Kerry?an American citizen and a naval officer, with no authority granted by his government?made arrangements while in the United States to meet with America?s enemies. He then traveled across the Atlantic, conferred with the communists in Paris, absorbed their terms for "peace" in Vietnam, returned to the United States to publicly endorse monstrous plans that trafficked in the lives of our POWs, and by so doing "defeat[ed] the measures of the United States."

In this, John Kerry shares the unpatriotic company of Dickensen, Batchelor, Olson, Johnson, Agee and Hanoi Jane Fonda?all violators of federal "intercourse with the enemy" laws.

All criminals.

Posted by: Conservatism at September 25, 2004 02:03 PM

Navy Launches Second Kerry Medal Probe

The U.S. Navy has launched a new probe into Sen. John Kerry's Silver Star citation after the Navy secretary whose signature appears on the document said he never signed the award.

"It is a total mystery to me," former Navy Secretary John Lehman told the Chicago Sun-Times in August.

"I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me," he complained.

The Lehman document is the last of three versions of Kerry's Silver Star citation that have been posted on Kerry's campaign Web site.

On Friday, Navy Inspector General Adm. R.A. Route closed out a superficial probe into the circumstances of Kerry's war decorations, one that verified only that appropriate procedures were followed when the commendations were issued.

But Monday's New York Post reported, "Lehman's disavowal of citation No. 3 has prompted a separate investigation."

Word of the second Kerry medals probe comes as complaints escalate over the top Democrat's refusal to authorize the release of his full military file.

Last week he told radio host Don Imus that all the Navy records he had in his possession had been posted to his campaign Web site.

But Imus never asked why Kerry hadn't signed Form 180, which would authorize the release of nearly 100 pages from his military file which remain under seal.

Posted by: Conservatism at September 25, 2004 02:05 PM

Moore Says Democrats Are a 'Bunch Of Crybabies' and Kerry is 'A Lousy Candidate'

By Jimmy Moore
Talon News
September 21, 2004

Liberal, anti-Bush film producer Michael Moore said on Monday that the Democratic Party is full of a "bunch of crybabies" and describes Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry as "a lousy candidate" in commentary he posted on his web site.

Moore, who is hoping his film "Fahrenheit 9/11" will make an impact on the 2004 presidential election, wrote in a piece entitled "Put Away Your Hankies" that the pessimism about the likely outcome of the presidential election needs to stop.

"Enough of the handwringing! Enough of the doomsaying! Do I have to come there and personally calm you down? Stop with all the defeatism, OK?" Moore proclaimed on his web site.

He added that President George W. Bush is a "goner" if Democrats can keep their focus on the goal and "quit our whining and bellyaching and stop shaking like a bunch of nervous ninnies."

"Geez, this is embarrassing," Moore declared. "The Republicans are laughing at us. Do you ever see them cry, 'Oh, it's all over! We are finished! Bush can't win! Waaaaaa!' Hell no."

Surprisingly, Moore said Democrats "secretly admire" Republicans because they "just simply never, ever give up."

"Only 30% of the country calls itself 'Republican,' yet the Republicans own it all -- the White House, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court and the majority of the governorships," noted Moore. "How do you think they've been able to pull that off considering they are a minority? It's because they eat you and me and every other liberal for breakfast and then spend the rest of the day wreaking havoc on the planet."

Describing Democrats as a "bunch of crybabies" because Bush has soared ahead in the polls following the GOP Convention in New York, Moore said the Swift Boat ads and the Dan Rather memo controversy do not spell the end of the Democratic Party in America.

Responding to critics within the Democratic Party who say that Kerry "can't win" against Bush, Moore shockingly agreed.

"Of course [Kerry]'s a lousy candidate -- he's a Democrat, for heavens sake! That party is so pathetic, they even lose the elections they win!" Moore remarked.

Posted by: Conservatism at September 25, 2004 02:15 PM

16,000 illegal voters registered in Los Angeles, California. All Democrats, but if we listen to the liberals it's the Republicans who are trying to steal the election. Then when a statesman says he wants identification to vote, the liberals scream suppression of the votes of the elderly, blacks and immigrants. Are they saying that it's the elderly, the blacks and the immigrants who are illegally registered to vote and why is asking someone to prove who they claim to be an infringement of their rights? Look through the rhetoric. First they tell us the Republicans are targeting black voters, then when someone proposes legislation simply asking us to prove who were are before we vote, they say we are targeting them. Don't they have identification? Can't they prove who they are? Are they voting illegally? If we really want to protect the itegrity of the vote in America we should all be concerned about voter fraud on both sides of the aisle and their should be bi-partisan support of proving who we claim to be. Of course, that's not going to stop the Democrats from putting voting machines in the trunks of their cars and trying to change the outcome of the election.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 25, 2004 02:25 PM

This is completely disgusting. But it represents everything that Abel, JM, D. Jones and all you other Pathetic Liberals believe in. YOU MAKE ME SICK!!! If you haven't noticed, as Democratic 'Hero' Michael Moore said, us republicans are the minority in population. Only 30% declare themselves Republican... However we control everything. The White House, The House of Representatives, the Senate, The supreme Court, the state-wide offices, and the governorships... Why is that? I hope you pathetic Liberals enjoy this article... In fact, you should donate some money to Moveon.org...

MoveOn Ad Shows American Soldier Surrendering in Iraq

By Jimmy Moore
Talon News
September 17, 2004

A new anti-Bush ad from liberal political online action group MoveOn.org features the image of a surrendering American soldier in Iraq.

The ad is especially critical of President George W. Bush taking the United States to war with Iraq and echoes the presidential campaign of Democrat John F. Kerry who said the money should be spent on domestic issues such as education and health care.

"George Bush misled us into war with Iraq, sending poorly equipped soldiers into battle," the voiceover announcer begins in the MoveOn.org ad. "He said 'Mission Accomplished,' yet almost every day more soldiers die."

A caption notes that there have been "over 1,000 U.S. soldiers killed" since the war in Iraq began over a year ago.

Although Bush attempted to go through the United Nations for a diplomatic resolution with Iraq's failure to comply with weapons inspectors, the MoveOn.org ad accuses the president of "going it alone."

"George Bush has spent $150 billion dollars [on the war in Iraq], money we need for schools and health care," the ad charged, with a caption highlighting "$150 billion."

Attempting to cast doubt in voter's minds about whether going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do, MoveOn.org claims that the "growing insurgency" in Iraq combined with "no real plan to end the war" is enough reason to institute a regime change in America.

"George Bush got us into this quagmire," the voiceover proclaims. "It will take a new president to get us out."

The word "quagmire" appears on the screen at the end of the ad.

MoveOn.org is one of the infamous 527 third party groups that are allowed to advertise with an unlimited amount of money during political elections as long as there is no communication between the groups and candidates.

Despite criticism from the Kerry campaign to the Bush campaign about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads that recently questioning Kerry's account of his service in Vietnam, the Kerry campaign has refused to denounce any ads from MoveOn.org or other liberal anti-Bush groups.

However, Bush Campaign Chairman Marc Racicot said Kerry "should apologize for the actions of his surrogates [at MoveOn.org] and demand that they take down their ad depicting a defeated American soldier [surrendering]."

Racicot said the MoveOn.org ad fits well with the theme of the Kerry campaign.

"John Kerry's campaign is rooted in the past, hollow with pessimism, and preaching defeat to the American people," Racicot declared.

Noting Kerry's "continually shifting positions on Iraq," Racicot said the "sinking rhetoric of a defeated America sends a signal to our allies and our enemies that America is not willing to finish the job" in Iraq if Kerry becomes president.

"This attitude undermines the great progress that the men and women in America's armed forces have made in the fight against terror around the world," Racicot concluded. "America expects more from one who aspires to the position of commander-in-chief."

Former U.S. Senator and 1996 Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole, who is serving as Chairman of President Bush's Veterans Coalition, also reacted strongly to the MoveOn.org ad and the lack of any reaction from the Kerry campaign.

"I call on John Kerry to demand that MoveOn.org take down their ad depicting a defeated American soldier," Dole said in a statement. "It's one thing to debate whether we should take the fight to the terrorists, but depicting an American soldier in effect surrendering in the battle against the terrorists is beyond the pale."

Dole said he is surprised Kerry would "approve" of such a "disgusting and demoralizing portrayal of American soldiers" since he "reminds of daily of his Vietnam service."

"John Kerry has raised doubts about our troops' ability to maintain security as well as Iraqi's ability to decide their own future through elections," Dole reminded, explaining that Kerry once called the American allies in Iraq "window dressing."

Recalling Kerry's testimony on Capitol Hill after returning from Vietnam, Dole charged that Kerry has been anti-military ever since.

"This is all reminiscent of his appearance before a Senate Committee in 1971 where he suggested with nothing but second hand information American GIs were committing atrocities and war crimes of the worst kind in Vietnam," Dole noted. "This defeatist attitude undermines the great progress and sacrifices of our men and women in the military and the contributions of our allies who are fighting against terror and standing up for freedom around the world."

Describing Kerry's "politics of pessimism" regarding the war on terror as "extreme," Dole said Kerry and his fellow liberal Democrats are "consumed by the past with nothing to offer but attacks on the President's agenda for creating a safer world."

Appealing directly to Kerry regarding the MoveOn.org ad, Dole asked, "John, say it isn't so and denounce this latest effort to divide Americans."

Posted by: Conservatism at September 25, 2004 02:26 PM

Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at September 25, 2004 12:55 AM

Bruce, why are you yelling all the time?

ACCUSE LAURA BUSH OF MURDER (I think the legal term is Involuntary Manslaughter, yep she did it.), ACCUSE PRESIDENT BUSH OF COCAINE PROBLEMS (Yep, GW JR admitted to it), MAKE DUI A FELONY (If you get 3, the State Of Texas recognizes the DWI/DUI CRIME as a felony, with that in mind, 1 DUI/DWI is still a CRIME), ACCUSE PRESIDENT BUSH OF BEING AWOL,OR OF BEING A LIER (Yep, that pretty much sums it up for the AWOL/LYING DUMMY, GW JR)

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004 The Right Choice!

Posted by: d. jones at September 25, 2004 02:33 PM

I remember D. Jones posting about how George W. Bush shut down streets and such when he came to Texas... He failed to look at the Democratic side of campaigning.... Enjoy...

See How the Democrats Set Up a Campaign Show!

''Good Tuesday morning!'' John Kerry brought his ''front porch meeting'' to our Canonsburg, PA neighborhood on Labor Day morning. Since you will never hear the truth from the TV or print media I thought that you should know from someone who was ''almost'' there.

The residents who live on the street where the event took place were not allowed to attend. Kerry shipped in approximately 90 invitation only VIPs. In addition, there was a hard luck case who was about to lose her job at US Air and another was an elderly woman who was having healthcare problems. Neither one was from this neighborhood. The street was closed to all traffic the night before and all residents on the street were REQUIRED to remove their Bush/Cheney signs.

The sympathetic police officers on duty told us that Kerry used imminent domain to claim the street for his purposes. Residents who have homes within the perimeter (approximately 1 full block) were kept behind a line, away from the partisan crowd. The rest of us were not allowed within the 1 block cordon. A neighbor from across the street came to the line where we were being kept and asked us to come onto his property.

The police told us that we could stand on this man's FORMERLY private property! This was set up so that Kerry's views could be heard - but not the neighbors. The shouts of about 30 people (mostly neighbors) echoed down the street stating, ''Let the neighbors in!''

We could barely hear Kerry speaking with his microphone because press buses were used to block us off from view! This morning's papers are reporting how hecklers tried to interrupt Kerry as he spoke to the neighborhood gathering, but he turned our chants to his favor by calling us rude. Even though most of the media was there to record our stories of not being included in the neighborhood forum, not one of them printed or aired the truth.

This is what America will look like if Kerry becomes president. Get registered and get all of your friends registered to vote if they have not already done so. Kerry thinks that he is better than the rest of us and he has the media on his side to make him out to be what he is not!

Finally, last night as I drove down the street where the rally was held, I was surprised to see Bush/Cheney signs in almost every yard on the street

LET FREEDOM RING!"

Posted by: Conservatism at September 25, 2004 02:33 PM

Thursday, Sept. 16, 2004 10:05 p.m. EDT

Police Union Backs Bush After Kerry Snub

The nation's largest police union, the Fraternal Order of Police, has endorsed President Bush after being insulted by Sen. John Kerry.

"This is the first time in the group's history that it has made a unanimous endorsement," FOP Executive Director Jim Pasco told Washington, D.C.'s Hill newspaper.

"Not only are we strongly supporting Bush, we're mad at Kerry," he explained. "Our members feel he treated them without respect - 318,000 cops."

Turns out the FOP sent the Kerry campaign a questionnaire to sound out the candidate's views, but he ignored it.

"He's galvanized our base against him," Pasco said. "It's just stupid."

Luckily for Kerry, his FOP snub and the group's decision to back Bush drew hardly any press coverage.

"The news media intentionally or unintentionally ignored this important endorsement by our nation's law enforcement community," complained Jim Kouri, vice president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police.

When the international firefighters union endorsed John Kerry, he noted, "the news media could hardly hold back their excitement when making the announcement."

Posted by: Conservatism at September 25, 2004 02:35 PM

Hmmmm... D. Jones once stated that I'd support Bush no matter what, and that my decision to support the expiration of the Weapon Ban was only because Bush didn't support the ban himself. Well, for your information... John Kerry is either a supporter of 'assualt' weapons... OR was breaking the law once again (like he did when he was arrested for an illegal protest, and when he met with the enemy..)

Kerry Questioned About His 'Chinese Assault Rifle'
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
September 17, 2004

CNSNews.com) - Does Sen. John F. Kerry really own a "Communist Chinese assault rifle," as he suggested in an interview in the latest edition of Outdoor Life magazine?

The Second Amendment Foundation says if the senator does own such a rifle, it wants to know where Kerry keeps it, if it is legally registered, and how he got it into the United States.

"Senator Kerry's own words once again trip him up in an apparent hypocrisy," SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb said in a press release.

"Responding to a question from Outdoor Life about whether he is a gun owner, and if so, what's his favorite gun, Kerry strongly intimates he has an assault rifle, which is illegal to own both in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C."

The Kerry quote appears on Page 82 of the October issue of Outdoor Life. He told the magazine, "My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam. I don't own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle."

Gottlieb called it another example of Kerry running on his Vietnam service history: "Now he's talking as if he's got an assault rifle stashed somewhere, while he's been railing against their ownership by other law-abiding American citizens," Gottlieb added.

Kerry supported an extension of the so-called assault weapons ban, which expired on Monday. Last week, at a campaign stop in St. Louis, he said, "As a hunter, I have never ever thought about going hunting with an AK-47 or an Uzi or anything else."

"Senator Kerry, where's the rifle?" Gottlieb asked. "In which one of your mansions are you hiding that gun? Why should it be okay for you to have a Communist Chinese assault rifle when you think nobody else should have one? And if you don't have one, why would you intimate to Outdoor Life that you do?"

Kerry has made it a point to appeal to gun owners by staging a number of gun-friendly photo-ops on the campaign trail.

Posted by: Conservatism at September 25, 2004 02:40 PM

"ACCUSE PRESIDENT BUSH OF COCAINE PROBLEMS (Yep, GW JR admitted to it)"

"ACCUSE LAURA BUSH OF MURDER (I think the legal term is Involuntary Manslaughter, yep she did it.)"

Posted by: d. jones at September 25, 2004 02:33 PM

D. Jones,

I don't recall GW JR admitting to cocaine abuse. Please provide your source. I'll use a source that your rather familiar with. (www.issues2000.org) "Bush is still trailed by UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS of cocaine use." I also see you have flip flopped from 'malicious' murder, to accidental manslaughter... Another John Kerry tradition you have made your own. But please explain how what Laura Bush did was worthy of criminal charges, while John Kerry being a confessed war criminal (who's punishment is death) is not worthy of being charged?

"Title 10, Section 904 of the United States Code [Uniform Code of Military Justice], which provides:

Any person who . . . without proper authority, knowingly . . . communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly, shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct." John Kerry acknowledges going to Paris to meet the Communists of Vietnam. He did so without authority. He endorsed their plan. Who's the real criminal? You're just trying to draw attention away from War Criminal Kerry.... but we already know the truth. Remember, he admitted to it on April 18th 1971.

Posted by: Conservatism at September 25, 2004 09:24 PM

Not a forgery: John Kerry's 1984 weapons system hit list

Christopher Holton, WorldTechTribune.com
WORLD TECH TRIBUNE.COM
Saturday, September 11, 2004

In recent days CBS News revealed 30-year old documents regarding
President Bush's service in the Air National Guard. Those documents
now appear to be forgeries.

But what has been lost in the Bush National Guard memo affair was the
release of another old document that appears to be much more relevant
to the presidential election.

Powerline Blog published a 1984 press release from John Kerry's senate
campaign in which Kerry's stance on defense is clear.

[Page 1]
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/KerryOnDefense1984_1.jpg

[Page 2]
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/KerryOnDefense1984_2.jpg

This press release is especially interesting because (a) Kerry is
running on building a "stronger America" and (b) the Kerry campaign
has denied that he opposed many of the weapon systems he has been
accused of opposing but rather opposed only entire defense
appropriations bills.

In that document, candidate Kerry calls for reducing the Reagan
defense buildup by some $50 billion by making cuts to specific weapons
systems. Let's analyze the list of weapons that John Kerry wanted to
cancel back in 1984:

-MX ICBM . This modern ballistic missile served as one of the
backbones of the U.S. nuclear deterrent triad during the Cold War--a
strategic force that eventually played a large roll in the defeat of
the Soviet Union.

- B-1 Bomber . Also a major system in the nuclear triad, the B-1 went
on to play a key role as a long-range, all-weather, heavy, precision
bomber in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. The B-1's
range and huge payload capacity were especially important given the
lack of basing rights in the region for both campaigns.

- Anti-Satellite System (ASAT) . This system was a missile designed to
be carried by an F-15 interceptor to a very high altitude and then
launched into the atmosphere to shoot down enemy satellites.
Unfortunately, the ASAT was indeed shelved due to budget constraints.
Now we are learning more every day that Red China is working on
systems to shoot down satellites and rogue nations, such as Iran and
North Korea, have satellite programs. The ASAT capability would be
quite useful.

- Star Wars . Probably no weapon system had greater impact on the Cold
War's outcome in the 1980s than Star Wars, or SDI, the Strategic
Defense Initiative. It was designed to provide America with a defense
against incoming ballistic missiles. Leftist opposition to the program
just about killed the whole concept, but its heart kept beating ever
so feintly and now we are close to deploying national missile defense.
Of course, had the left not opposed the program from its outset, we
would surely already have a defense against incoming ballistic
missiles from countries like Iran and North Korea. As we stand now, we
are completely defenseless against missile attack.

- Tomahawk missile . I guess Kerry should get partial credit here. He
only advocated cutting funding for the Tomahawk by 50%. That may have
been very damaging though since the Tomahawk is probably the most
widely used weapon against terrorists and rogue nations over the past
dozen years or so. The Tomahawk played a key role in Desert Storm,
Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, as well as a few other military
operations in the Balkans, Africa and the Middle East.

- AH-64 Apache attack helicopter . The Apache is the most modern
attack helicopter in the world. Apaches fired the first shots in
Operation Desert Storm and have played key roles in Enduring Freedom
and Iraqi Freedom. John Kerry wanted to cancel the Apache program.

- DIVAD system . The DIVAD air defense system was designed to protect
U.S. ground forces from the Soviet Mi-24 Hind attack helicopter, which
was much feared and widely used by communist forces in 1984. The DIVAD
was basically a radar-directed twin 40mm turret mounted on an old M-48
Patton tank chassis. The system was cancelled after performing poorly
in numerous tests and experiencing cost overruns. Kerry may have
actually been right about this one...pure dumb luck.

- Patriot Air Defense Missile . No weapon system symbolizes John
Kerry's horrible record on national defense more than the Patriot,
which he sought to cancel in 1984. Seven years later, Patriots were
saving lives in Desert Storm by shooting down Iraqi SCUD ballistic
missiles. They repeated that role in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Today
the Patriot is the most modern air defense system in the world and in
use in South Korea, Japan, several parts of Europe, Israel, and other
places in the Middle East. No thanks to John Kerry.

- AEGIS guided missile cruiser . The AEGIS air defense system-equipped
guided missile cruisers form the backbone of the U.S. fleet. They have
proven instrumental in everything from air and missile defense to drug
interdiction. They have also played a key role in operational
evolutions in launching cruise missile attacks on rogue nations and
terrorist bases.

- Iowa-class Battleship Reactivations . Seldom in the history of
warfare has a naval fleet gotten so much bang for the buck as the U.S.
Navy got for the modernization and reactivation of the USS New Jersey,
USS Iowa, USS Wisconsin and USS Missouri. For the cost of a frigate,
the U.S. Navy got a magnificent capital ship able to dominate the seas
and land for hundreds of miles around. These vessels played a key role
in the Cold War and also in operations from Beirut in 1983-84 to
Operation Desert Storm in 1991. On what basis John Kerry opposed the
reactivation of the Iowa-class battleships truly pro-U.S. security
people may never know.

- AV-8B Harrier . The Harrier is the world's only operational V/TOL
(vertical take off and landing) combat jet. It is the key player in
Marine aviation and close air support and played a major role in
support of our troops in Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi
Freedom, saving the lives of Americans on the front lines.

- F-15 Eagle . The F-15 has been the world's foremost fighter aircraft
since it entered service in the late 1970s. It guarded the skies as
part of NORAD in the Cold War and did so again after 9-11. In between
the F-15 ensured air superiority in virtually every major military
operation in which the U.S. was involved.

- F-14A/D Tomcat . The F-14, only now being replaced by the new
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, is the world's premier naval fighter. It was
essential to the protection of the U.S. fleet during the Cold War from
the mid-1970s on. F-14s twice shot down Libyan interceptors over
international waters during the 1980s and later versions became
outstanding all weather precision attack aircraft. In fact, for much
of Operation Enduring Freedom, the F-14 provided the entire precision
guided attack capability of the U.S. military as basing rights were
hard to come by for land based aircraft and the F/A-18C/D Hornet
lacked the range and endurance necessary to perform the mission over
Afghanistan. Another great airplane that John Kerry wanted to shoot
down on Capitol hill.

- AIM-54 Phoenix air to air missile . This long range missile was
carried exclusively by the F-14 and could bring down targets as far as
110 nautical miles away flying just above sea level or as high as
60,000 feet. Of course, since John Kerry sought to kill the F-14, it
only made sense that he should seek to rid our military of its key
weapon as well.

- AIM-7 Sparrow air to air missile . The Sparrow was the chief radar
guided air to air missile in the U.S. inventory from the 1950s until
the relatively recent introduction of the AIM-120 AMRAAM. The Sparrow
was the main armament of the F-15, F-16 and F-18 and the secondary
armament of the F-14. One wonders what Kerry thought we would have
armed our fighter aircraft with had he gotten his way and the Sparrow
was cancelled?

This list shows that no area of our national defense was safe from
John Kerry. He has fought equally hard on Capitol Hill against the
Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines over the course of his entire
career. We can only shudder to think what would have happened had he
won the day and all of these key weapons had been cancelled.

Next time you see a sign that says, "Kerry for a stronger America,"
you may want to stop and think about all these tools in the hands of
our servicemen and women that would not have been procured and
deployed had John Kerry gotten his way.

Posted by: Conservatism at September 25, 2004 09:49 PM

Bush Supporters,

Our hard work has paid off. Exposing Liars such as D. Jones, and exposing the Voting records of John Kerry has painted the Democratic party into a corner. The RNC bounce has faded away, but 25 days later, we're still up in 12 out of 13 national polls, and in position to walk away with the election. Key states that are democratic strongholds are slipping further and further out of grasp for Kerry. New polls show even New York, New Jersey, and California leaning more and more towards Bush. Bush leads in nearly every florida & ohio poll. Bush has a HUGE financial advantage over the DNC and Kerry camp, with nearly 50% more money at this point!! Enjoy the results!! Keep it up!!!

-Time Poll - 9/21-9/23 Bush-48 Kerry-44 (with nader its Bush-48, Kerry 42)
-Fox Poll - 9/21-9/22 Bush-45 Kerry 43
-Associated Press-Ipsos Poll - 9/20-9/22 - Bush-52 Kerry 45
-CBS News Poll - 9/20-9/22 Bush-49 Kerry 41%
-Marist College Poll - 9/20-9/22 Bush-50 Kerry-44
-Democracy Corps Poll - 9/19-9/21 Bush-Kerry Tied 49% but bush leads 47-45 with nader on ballot
-NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll 9/17-9/19 Bush-50 Kerry-46 w/nader, Bush-49 Kerry-46 without nader
-Zogby America Poll 9/17-9/19 Bush-47 Kerry-44, (bush-46 kerry-43 w/nader)
-Investor's Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll 9/14-9/18 Bush-46 Kerry-43 (Bush 45, kerry 42 w/nader)
-George Washington University Battleground Poll - 9/13-9/16 bush-46 kerry-39
-Gallup Poll 9/13-9/15 bush-55 Kerry-42 (Bush 54, Kerry 40 w/3rd party candidates on ballot)
-Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey - 9/11-9/14 Bush-47 Kerry-46
-The Harris Poll 9/9-9/13 Bush-47 Kerry-48%

As you can see Bush leads in 12 of the 13 newest national polls. Averaging all the polls together will provide you with the views of 13,732 people, and a result of 48.42% for Bush, and Kerry with 43.78% of the support. This is a large sample and thus provides VERY accurate results. The 4.6% lead that Bush currently has is solid enough to win a large portion of the electoral votes as shown in a nearly identical election, 1992. When Clinton won by 5.5% and 370-168 electoral votes. Also realclearpolitics.com shows the poll averages with a 'tracking' poll based on results of the various polls from the past week, and the results are on track with what I've represented in this post. Bush 49% - Kerry 43.4%

Vote Bush/Cheney 2004!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Conservatism at September 26, 2004 02:23 AM

D.JONES YELLING?

LAURA BUSH TRAGIC ACCIDENT, G.W. BUSH 1. NEVER ADDMITTED TO COCAINE USE, DID NOT LIE TO HIS COUNTRYMAN, DWI NOT A FELONY (YOU POINTED OUT IN TEXAS ON THE 3RD IT IS, I KNOW I AM A HOUSTON SERGEANT) AND WHEN DID HE GET 2 AND 3 DUI'S I MISSED IT, HAS A MBA FROM HARVARD OR YALE SO DUMB COULD NOT APPLY. I WILL NOT SAY YOU LIE, BUT A MASTER OF OVERSTATEMENT FITS NICELY. ONLY YOU KNOW IF YOUR LIEING OR ARE JUST MISINFORMED. TO BE AS MISINFORMED AS YOU ARE YOUR HEAD HAS TO BE IN THE SAND TO YOUR BUTT.

Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at September 26, 2004 02:46 AM

Here are some comments from Iraqi's that show that they appreciate what we have done, and that they DO want us there.... All of you pathetic liberals want to show only the bad side of the war. You never acknowledge the good that has came from it. I hope you read them all so you realize just how important freedom is, and how disrespectful you liberals are to the Iraqi Citizens God Given rights....

"I can honestly say now that I'm proud to be an Iraqi. Because of what has happened, because there is freedom here like I have not known before. Now I can talk-to you, to people I could never talk to before. I am a simple man. I am just a worker. But even these simple things-talking-give me hope."
Khalid Nemah, an Iraqi taxi driver, Chicago Tribune, 8/05/03

"Iraqis are very thirsty to learn what is happening outside of Iraq."
Abbas Darwish, owner of a Baghdad shop that sells newspapers, The New York Times, 8/05/03

"You never knew who was sitting next to you. In the past no one would dare to just speak out. Now everybody is talking. About federalism, about a monarchy. ... I think our aims are just one, to eliminate persecution for anyone ever again."
Jafar Adel Amr, a tool salesman in Iraq, Chicago Tribune, 8/05/03

"Freedom is much sweeter. I can get up in the morning and decide whether I want to shave or not; if someone in my family is sick, I can stay home with them. I don't need to ask permission."
Salim Kasim, one of Uday's chief mechanics, Los Angeles Times, 8/02/03

"We didn't believe these things, but we had to say them. Saddam was there in all the books, even the math books."
Ghada Jassen, a fifth grade teacher in Iraq, Chicago Tribune, 7/31/03

"We don't want patriotic education anymore. Nothing about war. We want flowers and springtime in the texts, not rifles and tanks."
Dunia Nabel, a teacher in Baghdad, Chicago Tribune, 7/31/03

"We have full freedom to print anything we want. The coalition doesn't interfere in our work but, of course, we have our own red lines."
Ishtar el Yassiri, editor of the new satirical Iraqi newspaper Habez Bouz, Financial Times (London), 7/31/03

"It is like the soul coming back to the body."
Ibrahim Abdullah, a refugee returning to Iraq, The Times (London), 7/31/03

"The tension is reducing every day. We are seeing a change. People are starting to realize that the soldiers are not here to occupy Fallujah forever-they're here to help us rebuild."
Taha Bedawi, mayor of Fallujah, The Washington Post, 7/29/03

"It's a chance to defend our country for our people. It's good to work with the American soldiers. They give us new training and a mutual respect."
Omar Abdullah, a recruit for Mosul's newly formed joint security group, Associated Press, 7/29/03

"We're happy, we're rid of Saddam Hussein; the torture and executions of 35 years are over. We should wait to see what the Americans will do."
Ahmed Abdel-Sahib, in Najaf, The Washington Post, 7/28/03

"There is a certain harmony. But you can not rebuild a city or country-a country destroyed by war-in one month."
Mohammed Tahar al-Abid Rabu, a member of the Mosul city council, Agence France Presse, 7/28/03

"For the first time I feel really free."
Latif Yahia, Uday's former double, after hearing of Uday's death, Agence France Presse, 7/26/03

"The Iraqi people have got rid of two of the biggest criminals in history. Their victims and the sons of their victims, who lived for 35 years under oppression, are feeling proud and happy."
Muwaffak al-Rubaiei, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, Agence France Presse and Reuters, 7/25/03

"We are more free nowadays. My father gave me the full freedom to marry whom I choose."
Raina Nuri, a woman in Baghdad, Christian Science Monitor, 7/25/03

"We felt better after the regime fell, now we are really happy-we have been freed from our nightmare."
Alaa' Kathem, an Iraqi soccer player who had been punished for losing games, Financial Times (London), 7/24/03

"Iraq is now free from torture. Free from Uday."
Amu Baba, a legendary soccer star in Iraq, Los Angeles Times, 7/24/03

"We feel safer now because we used to hear lots of stories about girls. We were so afraid to go out in case Uday saw us."
Farrah, a 15-year-old Iraqi girl, Newsday (New York), 7/24/03

"My father died because of Saddam. I don't want to speak about the reasons. But I was so happy. I was at home when I saw it on the TV. I woke up my aunts and told them the good news. I used to hate those guys so much and so I felt so at ease in my heart."
Osama Zaid, a distant cousin of Uday, after learning of Uday's death, Newsday (New York), 7/24/03

"Even the blind can see what Saddam Hussein did, taking Iraq into so many wars and doing little even for this town, no sports club, no decent hotels."
Wail al-Ali, Tikrit's new mayor, The Guardian, 7/22/03

"We are flying with happiness since Saddam is gone."
Zahar Hassan, in Iraq, Agence France Presse, 7/21/03

"There's more opportunity, more chances to earn money."
Um Khalid, on life in post-Saddam Baghdad, The Christian Science Monitor, 7/21/03

"[Uday] was a bad man, and he used to beat the soccer players if they lost a game. I think he used to treat the lions better than the people."
Mussab Ismas, a 13-year old boy, viewing Uday's lions at the Baghdad zoo, The Washington Post, 7/21/03

"Let the Americans stay, they protect us. I don't see them hurting anyone."
A mother living in Baghdad, The Christian Science Monitor, 7/21/03

"He [Uday] was a sick man, and he kept lions and tigers just to show his manhood, to show everyone that he cared more about animals than people. But he amputated their claws, and he took away their freedom, just like the people."
Alaa Karim, a Baghdad zoo employee, The Washington Post, 7/21/03

"I can see that the American soldiers are free. In our old army, we were always under pressure and strict military orders. There was tough punishment."
Raad Mamoud, a former Iraqi soldier, USA Today, 7/21/03

"I hope Iraq comes back strong. I am in favor of the new government."
Uday Kadhu, a Baghdad car salesman on the Iraqi archery team, Agence France Presse, 7/16/03

"In our opinion, the most significant thing about the formation of the transitional Governing Council is that it includes important personalities that are known to the masses and that represent the different political, national, democratic and progressive forces, as well as independent political organizations and religious denominations."
Iraqi newspaper Al-Manar, 7/15/03

"I felt that we had gone back to the year 1930. I feel that Iraq has started back from zero. We have wasted 75 years waiting to taste freedom."
Hadid al-Gailani, after the Governing Council announced the abolition of Baathist holidays, The Boston Globe, 7/14/03

"I helped deliver thousands of Iraqi babies, and now I am taking part in the birth of a new country and a new rule based on women's rights, humanity, unity and freedom."
Raja Habib al-Khaza'i, the director of an Iraqi maternity hospital and a member of the Governing Council, Associated Press, 7/13/03

"The formation of this council which represents all sectors of Iraqi society is the birth of democracy in the country. It is better than Saddam's government of destruction and dictatorship."
Razzak Abdul-Zahra, a 35-year-old engineer in Baghad, Associated Press, 7/13/03

"The establishment of this council represents the Iraqi national will after the collapse of the dictatorial regime."
Muhammad Bahr al-Ulum, a Shiite cleric on the Governing Council, Associated Press, 7/13/03

"It's a hard situation. But now that Saddam has fallen, it's OK. We can wait for the future now."
Muhammed Abdul al Sudani, the night watchman at a school in Baghdad, Baltimore Sun, 7/13/03

"Iraqis are looking forward to this day. They have been dreaming for so many years to have a government run by not only one man."
Sherwan Dizayee, a member of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, Los Angeles Times, 7/13/03

"He [Saddam] occupied Iraq for 25 years. It's not important that the Americans are here. What is important is that they got rid of Saddam Hussein. Now I feel free."
Fadil Emara, a shopkeeper in Baghdad, Agence France Presse, 7/12/03

"I want to help my country to make a new life, to get human rights, and also to get modern life, especially because we are a rich country."
An Iraqi translator for the Allied forces, The New York Times, 7/08/03

"We can't train staff fast enough. People are desperate here for a neutral free press after 30 years of a totalitarian state."
Saad al-Bazzaz, editor of the Azzaman Daily in Baghdad, The Independent (London), 7/08/03

"The Americans did a very good thing when they crushed Saddam for the Iraqis."
Khither Jaafar, a member of a Shiite party outlawed by Saddam, Los Angeles Times, 7/08/03

"U.S.-U.K., Liberators of Iraq from Saddam's Terror."
A banner hanging outside the entrance to central Suleimaniyah in Iraq, Chicago Tribune, 7/05/03

"We as a council were chosen by the people. God willing we will work to achieve the hopes and wishes of the people."
Mohammed al-Assadi, a representative on the new Najaf City Council, Associated Press, 7/07/03

"We were like a tightly covered pot which no one knew what it contained. Now that the cover has been removed, you can't imagine what you will discover."
Majed al-Ghazali, who now dreams of setting up a children's music school in Iraq, Associated Press, 7/07/03

"We feel liberated. We're very very happy."
Dana Mohammed, manager of a fast food restaurant in Suleimaniyah, Chicago Tribune, 7/05/03

"I can feel it inside. All Iraqis are feeling freedom. This is a good start of a new Iraq."
Saniya al-Raheem, a 56-year-old housewife in Baghdad, Agence France Presse, 7/03/03

"It was a cruel system. We were living under terror and we all suffered from it. It was for our own survival not to talk about politics. We could not even discuss our personal problems openly."
Balkis Al-Shamary, a clerk in an Iraqi shop, Agence France Presse, 7/03/03

"During the Saddam years, we did not even have hopes. We were living only to survive. Now I have lots of dreams and hopes."
Hansam Hassan, a pediatrician at Baghdad's Al-Alwiya Children's Hospital, Agence France Presse, 7/03/03

"I like free discussions. I talk about these issues with my families and friends. This could never happen during the Saddam years."
Maha Abrahim, owner of a wedding dress shop in Baghdad, Agence France Presse, 7/03/03

"A thousand thanks to Bush!"
Abdel Karim Hassan, in Basra, The New York Times, 6/27/03

"When I see my female students, I see hopes in them. They will have more opportunities to travel and learn and have more control of their lives."
Bushra Jani, a professor at Baghdad's Al-Mustansiriya University, Agence France Presse, 7/03/03

"The Americans liberated the Iraqi people from a despotic regime from which they suffered a lot. The Iraqi people could not change that regime with their own hands or overthrow it with their available means. The Americans came and solved this problem quickly and easily and in a way that gladdened the Iraqis."
Baghdad Al-Balat, an Iraqi newspaper, 6/18/03

"It gives me an immense sense of hope. Being here and seeing so many other people here signifies that, despite everything, life goes on."
Shafeeq al-Mahdi, an Iraqi playwright at a performance at the al-Rashid Theater in Baghdad, Associated Press, 6/25/03

"I will run for mayor. Because we have freedom."
Dhirgham Najem, a 23-year-old busboy in Najaf, The New York Times, 6/22/03

"They're buying them [satellites] like they buy bread. They say they're buying freedom."
Mohammed al-Mulla, a worker at an Iraqi electronics store, Associated Press, 6/25/03

"This is the first time we as Shiites can represent ourselves and talk with a loud voice. They never let us express our feelings."
Akil Dair, a part-time student at Baghdad University, The New York Times, 6/21/03

"Look at Saddam here, they have painted his eyes. Now he cannot see anymore. We also tore all his pictures from our textbooks. I only left one portrait on my math textbook as a souvenir, but I put mascara on his eyes and colored his lips in red."
Salam, a 10-year-old boy pointing to an old mural of Saddam in Baghdad, Agence France Presse, 6/21/03

"Owning or selling such songs was punishable by a one-and-a-half year prison sentence under Saddam. After being oppressed for 35 years, we are now scrambling to grab these songs, to which we listen with impunity."
Ahmad, whose shop in Baghdad is selling large amounts of previously banned Shiite music, Agence France Presse, 6/18/03

"This is the freedom exhibition. I'm flying now."
Mohammed Rasim, a 29-year-old Iraqi artist who was finally able to show his paintings in an exhibit once Saddam fell, Associated Press, 6/18/03

"We are so glad to be rid of Saddam Hussein."
Habid Khanger, who waited to marry until Saddam fell and his policies ended, USA Today, 6/17/03

"Why call us occupied? We are liberated."
Mohammed Hanash Abbas, co-owner of Iqra'a bookstore in Baghdad, Associated Press, 6/17/03

"Saddam would not allow us here; he would slay whoever came here. It's freedom now!"
Salah Maadi Khafaji, an Iraqi swimming in a part of the Tigris that had been off limits to ordinary Iraqis, Los Angeles Times, 6/17/03

"America has shown us compassion we never had from Saddam or fellow Arabs."
Attallah Zeidan, co-owner of a small bookstore in Baghdad, Associated Press, 6/17/03

"I should have freedom to wear or not to wear the veil. I don't want to let these people dictate my thoughts. I am an educated woman. I am a religious woman. I know my duties to God."
Kawkab Jalil, a woman in Baghdad who decided to take off her veil, The Washington Post, 6/17/03

"When I leave my job at night, I am very happy, very proud about myself. We must help the Americans, and show them our traditions."
Suhair Karmasha, the first Iraqi woman to work with the Americans at Baghdad's city hall, The Washington Post, 6/17/03

"We are like newborn children. We are very, very happy."
Ali Hashem Jasim, in Iraq, Chicago Tribune, 6/13/03

"We broke the dams when the Iraqi army left. We want to teach our children how to fish, how to move on the water again."
Qasim Shalgan Lafta, a Marsh Arab and former fisherman who helped restore the water to the Iraqi wetlands that Saddam had destroyed, Chicago Tribune, 6/13/03

"Before, we saw Saddam on one channel, then we saw Saddam on another channel. When the signal went off, we'd hear Saddam. Even in our dreams, we heard his voice. It's better than before."
Tahir Sadeq, an Iraqi hotel manager, The Washington Post, 6/13/03

"Before, we couldn't speak. Before, we couldn't live. But life has changed from bad to best in Sulaymaniyah. I hope everyone in Iraq can live like us soon."
Abdul Karim, a 70-year-old Iraqi, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 6/12/03

"The name of Saddam had a value among us, but now, I do not love Saddam. I feel I have been deceived. I am shocked to hear about his crimes against our people."
Yaaser Akram, an 11th-grade student in Baghdad, Associated Press, 6/12/03

"I want to know the secrets of Saddam. Before, we couldn't even say his name, and now we can know the truth."
Abdul, who bought a copy of one of Saddam's home movies, Associated Press, 6/12/03

"I have no more fear now. From the moment Iraq was liberated I felt as though my two sons had been brought back to me."
A woman whose 17-year-old son, Sardar Osman Faraj, was executed in Iraq in 1985 and another was killed by unknown assassins in 1992. Los Angeles Times, 6/8/03

"It's a big change. We used to get central instructions from the Ministry of Information. Now we no longer do. Azzaman is independent. It lets the readers learn and decide the political currents."
Abdel-Majid, of the Azzaman newspaper in Iraq, Washington Post, 6/8/03

"Things have changed. There's not the same fear. I didn't see my future here before. Now, maybe I do."
Ardelan Karim, who unsuccessfully attempted to flee Iraq four times after escaping Saddam's executioners, The New York Times, 06/05/03

"We are all very happy and comfortable. This is the freedom we want."
Yizmak Askander Abu, a teacher in Rassalin, The Times (London), 06/05/03

"I never allowed myself to live all these years. Every day I thought, now they're going to come and take me. I was always waiting."
Nasir al-Husseini, 22, who survived a mass execution at age 10, The New York Times, 06/01/03

"Freedom means that Saddam is no longer around."
Firas al-Dujaili, an Iraqi doctor, Associated Press, 5/29/03

"This is like a dream for us. The Americans liberated us and gave us our freedom. We hope they stay to protect the minorities like us."
Emir Farooq Saeed Ali Beg, a member of the formerly persecuted Yazidi tribe, The Times (London), 06/05/03

"For the first time in Iraq, democratic processes are put in place to elect government officials. Democratic elections are a new phenomenon in today's Iraq. True democracy appears with the absence of dictatorships and tyranny."
The Iraqi newspaper Al Naba, 06/01/03

"...[T]he Iraqi people are too happy that Saddam is gone. Too happy."
Salim, a citizen of Baghdad, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 06/01/03

"We are so happy, not just for the contract, but to work again in our country with our people and our equipment to help rebuild our country."
Loay Ibrahim Al-Saied, an Iraqi engineer whose company received a contract to construct a highway bypass, PR Newswire European, 5/30/03

"Freedom means to travel, to get the job I want, to study in the college I want."
Ahmed al-Samarai, a citizen of Iraq, Associated Press, 5/29/03

"I couldn't teach the students the truth. I was unable to tell them that we were ruled by a dictator. If I did, my neck would be on the line."
Wijda Khalidi, an Iraqi schoolteacher, Associated Press, 5/29/03

"I cannot describe how I am glad. After so many years of dictatorship, we have chosen our own leader."
Kemal Kerkuki, after participating in the election of Kirkuk's new mayor, The New York Times, 5/29/03

"Now that Iraq is free, we are demanding freedom and equal rights that Iraqi women have always been deprived of."
Eman Ahmed, member of the Rising Iraqi Women's Organization, Associated Press, 5/21/03

"I can tell you all these things now because we are free. Before, we lived like exiles in our own country."
Suhaib Abbas Majeed, an Iraqi medical student, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/21/03

"This is the first time in our lives we have experienced democracy. It is a beautiful thing. Everyone is excited. Everyone is here. ...Not complaining. Coming to vote."
Rabaab Mahmoud Kassar, a female attorney in Najaf who participated in the election of the town's new judges, The Washington Post, 5/21/03

"We've been living in jail for three decades. Now, we are free. Help is coming. Day by day, life is for the better."
Saddam Agil, grandfather of five and resident of Basra, USA Today, 5/20/03

"Before we used to commemorate the day hidden at home, we were afraid of Saddam's agents who were everywhere and spied on us. Today I feel happy."
Faithela Asam, an Iraqi Shiite, on publicly celebrating the birthday of Mohamed for the first time in decades, Agence France Presse, 5/19/03

"We are a free voice that does not belong to any party. We wanted this channel to be free and speak in the name of all Iraqi people."
Khalil al-Tayar, director of the new Karbala Television station, Associated Press, 5/19/03

"Most Iraqis did not know what freedom was, but have shown they prefer it after finding it now. Most Iraqis do not know what democracy is, but they will certainly love it once they taste it."
Amir Taheri, Al-Sharq al-Awsat, 5/19/03

"We can say anything we want in public. Now we're free."
Safaz al Hellou, an Iraqi teenager, The Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/19/03

"This is the first attempt for us to run our town by ourselves. We are ready to rebuild our town, and we are ready to rebuild our country."
Najim Abed Mahdi, a chairman of the Umm Qasr interim town council, The Guardian (London), 5/15/03

"This is the happiest moment we all felt. It's a primordial feeling -- this tyrant coming down."
Yussra Hussen, San Francisco Chronicle, 5/12/03

"I am happy that Saddam is gone. The teachers told me to love Saddam. My parents told me he was a bad man."
Dina, 7, U.S. News & World Report, 5/12/03

"We are not fighting anybody. We will not raise our weapons because freedom is within our sight. We want an Iraqi government that represents all Iraqis. Sunni and Shia Muslims, Kurds, Turcomans and religious minorities -- they will have their rights in this land."
Returned Iraqi exile Ayatollah Hakim, speech to Iraqis in Najaf, London Daily Telegraph, 5/12/03

"(April 9th was) a good day for all Iraqis. The people of Iraq want democracy. They lived without it for 35 years. It was like Russians under Stalin."
Ministry Engineer Ghassan Yassin, 53, Victoria Times-Colonist (Canada), 5/11/03

"Beautiful, beautiful. Not Iraqi TV. Not Saddam Hussein TV. Beautiful."
Akhbal Ibrahim Rashid watching her satellite dish-equipped television, Los Angeles Times, 5/9/03

"All my life I have been escaping. So I have dreamed of freedom, of traveling abroad, of feeling life the way all young people do. Maybe now I will."
Mohammed Khadum, 28, in Baghdad, Washington Post, 5/8/03

"You cannot imagine what it means for us to be here on this national stage, where everything we stand for was forbidden. Now it is ours."
Oday Rashid, an Iraqi musician and documentary filmmaker, Los Angeles Times, 5/5/03

"I saw the world for the first time. I saw where we were. I saw presidents and cities and people from everywhere! The whole world!"
School Principal Bushra Cesar, after buying a satellite TV dish, New York Times, 5/4/03

"We will keep on somehow. Now we have the most important thing that we need. There is no one to stop us from saying anything we want onstage."
Basim Hajar, coauthor and director of a play criticizing Saddam Hussein's regime performed in a building where -- before the war -- only works sanctioned by the government were allowed. Los Angeles Times, 5/5/03

"Before, if I had sold this, they would have cut my head from my body."
Imad Saad, selling a copy of an opposition-run paper, Los Angeles, 5/3/03

Posted by: Conservatism at September 26, 2004 03:05 AM

There's been much debate over the New Bush book. D. Jones and others have claimed that if the 'claims aren't true, then bush could/should sue for slander/libel'.... What do you say when the table is turned? When its John Kerry's name on the line, why hasn't he sued? or better yet, why doesn't he just release his military records? what could he possibly be hiding??? He has raised more questions than he's answered...... and he hasn't sued anyone yet, just another empty threat, like the threat to disarm saddam... What a joke!!!

----------------------------------------------

O'Neill Dares Kerry: 'Sue Me'

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth spokesman John O'Neill dared Sen. John Kerry on Sunday to sue him for libel if, as Kerry's presidential campaign maintains, key claims in O'Neill's book "Unfit for Command" are not true.

"I invite him to sue me for libel," O'Neill, who co-authored the overnight best seller with Jerome Corsi, told WABC Radio's Monica Crowley.

"If he was actually in Cambodia on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, he should sue me. If, in fact, those other five [Swift] Boats, on March the 13, [1969], if they all fled like he did, instead of staying like he knows they did, he should sue me."

O'Neill continued, "If he didn't wound himself with a grenade, causing sort of a rice-fanny wound, and then reported it to the Navy as a water mine - if he didn't do that on March 13, he should sue me."

O'Neill issued the challenge after noting that Kerry's campaign has gone to extraordinary lengths to suppress the information in "Unfit for Command."

"On our first [Swiftvet] ad, he had two huge law firms send letters to every [TV] station, threatening to sue the stations themselves" if they ran the ad, the former Swift Boat commander told Crowley.

"The next thing he did was challenge the book's publisher, Regnery, indicating he would sue them if they continued printing the book," he added.

The best-selling author said that while Regnery declined to stop printing "Unfit," it offered to republish Kerry's 1971 book, "The New Soldier," which chronicles the top Democrat's anti-war protests with a group bankrolled by Jane Fonda.

Kerry has declined to have "The New Soldier" republished over the years and reportedly bought up most of the available copies in 1972, after his opponent in a congressional race used it to paint him as anti-American.

Posted by: Conservatism at September 26, 2004 03:14 AM

Hmmmmmm....... Interesting...

UN Confirms: WMDs Smuggled Out of Iraq
June 18, 2004, Rod D. Martin

In a report which might alternately be termed "stunning" or "terrifying", United Nations weapons inspectors confirmed last week not merely that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but that he smuggled them out of his country, before, during and after the war.

Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) briefed the Security Council on Saddam's lightning-fast disma