« 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 wit