« Battleground Poll | Main | Swiftboat Veterans for Truth is doing for John Kerry what Farenheit 911 did for Bush »
August 04, 2004
SoftVote Update Released. Download Now!
We want to thank everybody for sending us positive feedback. We have made minor enhancements to SoftVote and we encourage you to download the updated version. We appreciate everybody's support and expect more updates to be released soon.
Posted by Elouise at August 4, 2004 12:18 PM
Comments
I am very impressed with this software. I enjoy checking daily to see how my man George W. Bush is doing and so far so good. I appreciate this new program very much.
Thanks
Posted by: Paul Lagrange at August 5, 2004 11:36 PM
Still no Libertarian party, yet still Ralph Nader. What a shame! What a sham! It seems there is a conspiracy to keep Mr. Badnarik's name off of the polls and out of the debates. Could it be because given some publicity that people might actually think he is the best candidate for the job?
Posted by: Ken Bridges at August 7, 2004 10:41 AM
i enjoy this page very much. infact i have sent it to everyone on my mailing list and encouraged them to vote for someone, hopefully george w. bush.
Posted by: howard boyer at August 7, 2004 07:30 PM
Your daily updated poll is something I look at each day. Keep up the good work, and go Bush.
Posted by: William Bill Keys at August 8, 2004 09:51 AM
The bias towards Bush is encouraging, but could it be because the majority of SoftVote voters are those who work for a living, own a computer, and take an interest in tools such as this?
Posted by: James Bell at August 14, 2004 02:34 PM
LOL at the last comment, I am Liberal, I am educated, and I own a computer..
The more people think, the more they lean Democrat... So you guys better not let them think.
Posted by: James M. at August 17, 2004 02:54 AM
i have to ask you mr. bell, are you sure about your assumption that the more people think, the more they lean democratic in their party choice? because as a college student i was shown no fewer than 20 studies that showed how education level affects party choice, and as a matter of fact, the higher the education level that someone has, the better chance they are of becoming a republican... they're are exceptions to the rule on both sides of the aisle, but the basis to the studies i've saw is that with increasing education level, you increase your chance of being republican... there's also other ideas on what makes someone have a better chance of being a republican, as i recall in in the 2000 election, nearly 90 percent (87 anyways) of people who attended church more than once a week voted for george w. bush....why is that?
the argument you have made that liberals are created from education in politics is completely unfounded, and an quick example is conservative talkshows... why do they work? why has liberal talk radio never worked in the past? because the more people learn about politics and the issues, the more likely they are to become ... republican..
its funny though, when you read polls that show 30 percent of americans supporting abortion, i've never personally talked to someone that agree's with it... when it comes to seperations of church and state, i've talked to people who are against state ran religion (as am i), but i haven't talked to anyone with a problem with allowing faith based programs to exist in the government...when it comes to the war in iraq, all the liberal media shows is the downside of the war, the casualties, the hostages, the bombs... they forget that in june of this year, more people were killed in just the city of chicago by murderers than in iraq? where's the protests for that? where's the march against the drug dealers that did the drive by, or the thug that robbed the homeless man of his last penny? oh wait, they're not protesting it, because they're DOING it...
i read a recent poll that did show that a convicted felon had an 81% chance of being a democrat, compared to only 8% of being a republican... why is that? most felons are uneducated, and don't know the issues...
why is the military solidly behind the president? and dont' start with the c***.."i talked to alot of guys that dont' like him, and they're in the military" because everyone already knows differently...
its funny, you can ask a democrat about the issues that bother them most, they reply with: the deficit, the unemployment rate, gay marriage, stem cell research, and the war in iraq....yet here's the truth about it all...
the majority, and i mean SUPER majority of americans do not have even the slightest clue what the deficit is and what it truly means... yet they'll claim its a voting issue
the majority of americans don't know that the unemployment rate is .1% lower for george bush's first 4 years than in bill clintons, and its lower than the national average in the past 60 years..they also don't know that since january, 550,000 new business's opened up under d.b.a.'s and do not apply to the unemployment rate and job creation stats...
the majority, and i mean SUPER majority of the american people have no clue what stem cells are or do, they hear that it will cure diseases upon diseases and rid the world of sickness... sure, i'd support it 110 percent if that were the case... yet most dr.'s don't believe that it will ever amount to anything, and the cure for alzhiemers is not goin to be found in this treatment, due to the fact that its caused by chemical connectors that are bad in the brain... not bad cells... the majority of people believe that life starts at conception... however they do not know that these stem cells are 'concieved' already... making destruction of them equal to abortion... which once again, the majority of americans definately disagree with... however, with funding of stem cell research, this is the first president to ever fund it... there's NO ban on it as you've heard, there IS a $25,000,000 fund for it, and it IS being used... bill clinton had the choice to fund it 8 different times and not once did he... and this isn't new science, it was discovered decades ago...
the majority of people supported the war in iraq, today a poll showed that it was split roughly 50/50... however all they hear in the liberal media is that bush misled them, they fail to realize that roughly 50 nations had the same identical intelligence we had... they fail to notice that a clinton appointed cia director stepped down just days before the 9/11 report came out with damning info against his agency...they fail to see that the intelligence community provided bad intelligence to the president, in which a bipartisan committee unanimously agreed that george bush did not mislead the u.s., and they hear that george bush said 16 words that was a lie in the state of the union, yet the reports now show that he actually DID NOT lie... and that it was extremely credible information, that has yet to be disproven...
in conclusion...the more people hear in the media, the more they'll wanna become democrat.. the more people KNOW and LEARN, the better chance it'll create a republican
Vote Bush/Cheney 04
Posted by: Justin Anderson at August 18, 2004 02:40 AM
First off thanks to the creators of soft vote. i have never been as passionate and sincere about politics in my life. I truly believe that John Kerry is a backstabbing mess of false political agendas and reckless abandon for his country and our soldiers.He seems to lie a each breathe he takes.George Bush may not be a perfect president, but neither were Clinton, Kennedy, Lincoln,Reagan, nor Washington. These guys did the best they could with what they had. 9/11 had been brewing since the Clinton administration, luckily (for him), it all feel on Mr.Bush, to pick up the pieces, and try to unite Americans, who all too often revel one minute,then loose sight of their goals the next. I will vote for George W. Bush because he is a great man as well as a GREAT President. If not for him just think where this country would be in the hands of Al Gore.God save the Republicans. 4 more years.
Bush/Cheney 2004
Posted by: aubrey ford at August 18, 2004 11:02 PM
Can you inagine what would happen to his country if John Kerry is elected president. First of all nothing is more important than fighting terrorist. The economy, social security, jobs, etc. all take a back seat because if we can't protest ourselves from a bunch of people bent on our destruction. We will be at their mercy. Kerry would take the Democratic party line, such as Bill Clinton did, and probably not reply to another attack. And, if he did it would only be a token response. We would be open for attacks again and again if we don't stand up and fight for our freedom. All these other issues don't really matter until we defeat the terrorist. Think about this when you get ready to vote.
Posted by: Robert Ritter at August 19, 2004 03:00 PM
I have a plan!
Everyone will be able to own his or her home.
Everyone will have free quality health care.
Everyone will have the confidence that they will be protected from all thieves, and terrorist.
Everyone will have a good secure job.
Everyone will be able to retire at a reasonable age with ample monies to live well
See, it's easy to say it, but you will notice I haven't spelled out the details on how these items can be accomplished.
That's what I hear every day from Kerry. He knows all the buzzwords that we all want to hear but no specific details on how he expects to accomplish it.
President Bush has gotten us through 911 which by the way could have been far more devastating to the entire country than it was, removed Sadam from power and that's one less evil person that could have caused our country tremendous problems in the future the way he was going, and he has led us on the fight against terrorist all over the world.
Maybe we have to just take a moment and consider all the fine things we all have and were they come from. We all know many of the everyday items we use and depend on come from countries all over the world. If we want to continue to have this way of life and enjoy all the things we have, we have to protect the countries that provide us with all the products and services.
If we are going to be the largest world power, then we have to accept the responsibility's connected with that power.
Lets face it, we arent doing all that bad considering what is going on in the rest of the world. Isn't it logical to just continue in the same direction rather than changing leaders at this time??
I suggest you vote Bush/Cheney for continued leadership.
Posted by: JJ MaCaw at August 19, 2004 10:39 PM
The bias towards Bush is encouraging, but could it be because the majority of SoftVote voters are those who work for a living, own a computer, and take an interest in tools such as this?
Posted by: James Bell at August 14, 2004 02:34 PM
JAMES YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD! THIS IS EXCATLY THE CASE IN THIS SITE. "FACTS"
1) AS A CERTIFIED COMPUTER PROFESSIONAL I KNOW THE SOFTWARE IS FAULTY AND POORLY WRITTEN:
2) IT IS COMPLETELY BIASED TOWARD THE RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVES:
3) IF YOU NOTICE THE VERY FIRST ADVERTISING LINK IT WILL TAKE YOU TO THE RNC:
4) I AM SMART LIKE JOHN KERRY, THAT IS WHY I POST HERE AND NOT FROM THE KERRY BLOG, BUT FROM INDIVIDUAL SITES. I.E. THE WASHINGTON TIMES:
5) I AM VERY PROUD OF WHAT I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH ON THIS SITE AS FAR AS MY PERSONAL VIEWS ARE CONCERNED: I HAVE EVEN MORE RESPECT FOR SENATOR JOHN KERRY, HE CAME THROUGH FOR ME:
6) THE SITE WAS UPDATED TODAY THURSDAY, AUGUST 19TH WITH THE VIETNAM SWIFTBOATS NEWS FROM THE WASHINGTON POST, AFTER MY COMMENTS ABOUT THE SHAME!
7) THIS POST WILL PROBABLY NOT MAKE IT TO THE BOARD. I WOULD BE IMPRESSED IF IT WERE, BUT THIS IS RNC MONEY:
8) AFTER SEVERAL DAYS OF BATTLING BUSH SUPPORTERS ALMOST ALONE ON THIS SITE, I NOTICED A LOT OF BLUE STATES CHANGING:
9) THE MAIN POSTERS ARE FROM THE OHIO BATTLEGROUND STATE OR THEY SAY SO, AND THEY HAVE NO SOURCES AND ATTEMPT TO CONVINCE ANY OTHER SUPPORTERS OF THEIR VIEWS TOWARD REPUBLICANS:
10) FOR ALL I REALLY KNOW WE COULD BE TALKING DIRECTLY TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WHICH IS WHY I PURSUE MY EFFORTS FOR SENATOR JOHN KERRY!
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004 HE WILL WIN! YES!
Posted by: d. jones at August 20, 2004 01:08 AM
d.
Please, the first ad I saw was for both parties, not just one. I have figured you out, you have selective vision, you see only what you want to see and nothing else. If it does not fall within your parameters, it does not exist.
Posted by: David Lowery at August 21, 2004 01:51 PM
I just celebrated my 72nd birthday - & that means I have seen (or lived through) a lot!
I vote for the person I feel most qualified - not by party! It doesn't make sense to believe any one party could produce or attract ALL the good people.
This year be assured I will be voting for Bush/Cheney. Why wouldn't I support the Armed services who so gallantly protect our beloved USA? I guess it has been to long since a 'real' war - so the younger generations may not realize that we - as the people of the USA - have been blessed by being able to fight 'evil' overseas, thus keeping it away from our land.
Yes, evil did strike in our land on 9/11 - and that should be a 'wake up call' for those who doubt the need for war against terrorism!
READ the news and see what goes on in many countries (horror daily) READ History! We lost thousands in a single invasion during WWII - but it was worth it because families here were safe! My first husband (before we were married) was a gunner on the battleship USS Pennsylvania. My brother was a prisoner of war, and my cousin was killed while serving during WWII. My high school classmates served to defend peace in Korea, and the next generation fought in Vietnam.
War is never easy or nice! It is just required - if we want to continue waking up each morning to the alarm clock, or birds chirping - not gun fire, or bomb blasts.
4 MORE YEARS! (& then hopefully another qualified person will be running to keep the USA safe!)
Posted by: Carol Zimmer at September 3, 2004 11:27 AM
Carol,
You go girl. Thanks for your input. The voice of all people needs to be heard, not just the young who haven't lived through the things you have. We need to keep things in perspective.
See you at the polls. 4 MORE YEARS!!!!
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 3, 2004 10:12 PM
The Democratic Party is leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouths this election as well as from the election that preceeded it. The level of hate is unprecedented in any election I've seen since becoming a fan in '52. While the dissembling by that party has grown beyond reason lately, it is something that all sides participate in during every election. However, it's the vitriolic 'hate' that's so remarkable -- I chalk it up to fear: Fear of loosing power; fear of loosing influence; fear of not being taken seriously; and fear of loosing oneself. The Democratic Party is swimming in a sea of unreasoned and irrational HATE!!
George W is probably one of the closest things to a 'regular guy' we've had in recent times. He is not the monstrous liar, cheat, coward or any of the other horrendous adjectives that the Democratic Party and its legion of trolls have tried to make of him. It's a silly proposition really, unworthy of a once great Party.
All the hyperventilating Left, which is now the functioning core of the Democratic Party, has succeeded in doing is to cripple and possibly destroy this once powerful and constructive political entity, and it's a shame. We all need serious and responsible discussion between two parties; it's the strength of our American system.
As a consequence of the coming election disaster, the Democratic Party will have to come to grips with itself and begin cleaning its own house. It will have to remove from influence the radical Leftists, the Eastern 'Country Club-House' elites (particularly of the Massachusetts variety), the educationalist slugs, and lawyer-class parasites and bring themselves together into a party that represents a broader coalition of proud Americans that can feel confidence in their party again.
One only needs to look at the early decades of the 20th century through the seventies to see what unleashed 'hate' from the Left can lead to -- and that includes that of the Fascist variety (a socialist by yet another name). One hundred forty million POLITICAL murders were racked up during that century -- not counting the carnage of its wars -- and we really don't need to repeat that in this century. It's long past time for the Democrats to clean their nest.
Posted by: soregon at September 4, 2004 10:40 PM
dj ones is blinded by kerry if u view other electoral polls this one is very close to what they say
by the way d jones i suggest u watch this movie it will help u see the light http://www.citizensunited-interactive.org/c41.11 watch and be educated.
bush chenney 04
Posted by: brandon at September 27, 2004 08:40 PM
SOREGON
Posted by: soregon at September 4, 2004 10:40 PM
THAT WAS A WELL THOUGHT OUT POST AND I ENJOYED READING IT. LIKE ZELL MILLER SAID HE NEVER LEFT THE DEMOCRATE PARTY, IT LEFT HIM. THE HATE IS OVER THE TOP FROM THE DEM'S AND IT WILL CONSUME THEM. I HAVE POSTED SEVERAL POSITIVE MESSAGE REGARDING PRESIDENT BUSH AND REASONS TO VOTE FOR HIM. BUT YOU CAN SUM IT UP WITH ONE WORD LEADER. HE IS A LEADER. VOTE BUSH CHENNEY O4
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at September 29, 2004 06:47 AM
I think this website trends toward Bush, not because of any covert allegiance on the part of the website operators (to the republicans); but because people who follow websites like this are more intelligent than average.
Posted by: Bill Bloom at October 2, 2004 03:11 PM
soregon,
I have just completed reading your stupid POST and all I can say is, "Speak for yourself." You are crazy if you think the problem is with our party. The problem is that the current Repblicans have stopped thinking and accept George W. Bush's words, goals, issues, etc. like they are coming from God himself.
Democrats cannot help but regard George W. Bush like a man, capable of making mistakes like everyone else, and that's all. He's no one extra special except for the fact that he was appointed President by our US Supreme Court on a 5 to 4 vote. Hey, I'm from Texas too and I knew all about him when he was our Governor. Let me add that there's no hate involved---he just never impressed me.
Our Democratic party is another matter. It represents mostly the workers of America whether organized or not. We are not for outsourcing our jobs and George W. Bush is. He hate workers when we get organized and we like being organized but there's absolutely no hate involved. We are organized because we want to participate actively in our government. We are the American people who work for a living and we don't appreciate being left behind.
You say about GW Bush that "He is not the monstrous liar, cheat, coward or any of the other horrendous adjectives.." well we respectfully disagree. We think he's behind all those negative political Ads that have been published recently for the purpose of scaring Americans into voting him in for four more years.
Listen, we're not like you--we tell the truth and we may let you go on with your thinking that you're going to win this election but we think that George W. Bush is going to get fired pretty quickly. He did lie to the American people by telling us that Saddam Hussein and Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US. That was a lie. Get it?
You say, "I chalk it up to fear: Fear of loosing power..." For your information, our party is currently out of power, so what power are you talking about? Your party controls the Judicial Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch and the last I heard, that's all there is. So you folks have all the power right now. We don't hate you---we just don't trust you anymore because of all your lies.
Your condensed POST follows:
"The Democratic Party is leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouths this election as well as from the election that preceeded it. The level of hate is unprecedented in any election I've seen since becoming a fan in '52. While the dissembling by that party has grown beyond reason lately, it is something that all sides participate in during every election. However, it's the vitriolic 'hate' that's so remarkable -- I chalk it up to fear: Fear of loosing power; fear of loosing influence; fear of not being taken seriously; and fear of loosing oneself. The Democratic Party is swimming in a sea of unreasoned and irrational HATE!!
George W is probably one of the closest things to a 'regular guy' we've had in recent times. He is not the monstrous liar, cheat, coward or any of the other horrendous adjectives that the Democratic Party and its legion of trolls have tried to make of him. It's a silly proposition really, unworthy of a once great Party.
All the hyperventilating Left, which is now the functioning core of the Democratic Party, has succeeded in doing is to cripple and possibly destroy this once powerful and constructive political entity, and it's a shame. We all need serious and responsible discussion between two parties; it's the strength of our American system.
As a consequence of the coming election disaster, the Democratic Party will have to come to grips with itself and begin cleaning its own house. It will have to remove from influence the radical Leftists, the Eastern 'Country Club-House' elites (particularly of the Massachusetts variety), the educationalist slugs, and lawyer-class parasites and bring themselves together into a party that represents a broader coalition of proud Americans that can feel confidence in their party again.
One only needs to look at the early decades of the 20th century through the seventies to see what unleashed 'hate' from the Left can lead to -- and that includes that of the Fascist variety (a socialist by yet another name). One hundred forty million POLITICAL murders were racked up during that century -- not counting the carnage of its wars -- and we really don't need to repeat that in this century. It's long past time for the Democrats to clean their nest."
Posted by: soregon at September 4, 2004 10:40 PM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 6, 2004 01:52 PM
I live in Massachusetts and know first hand how Kerry is not good for this Country. Has anyone ever heard of Taxachusetts it is right in the middle of Massachusetts. Vote Bush, he is a straight shooter and not a double talker like Kerry.
Posted by: Joyce at October 9, 2004 09:43 AM
Joyce,
I'm from Texas and I know George W. Bush too. He's a lot of things but one thing he's not is a "straight talker." I don't know where you have been but George W. Bush has been lying to the American people. Read the POSTs here and on the other Boards on this BLOG and you'll learn about all the things that George W. Bush has done.
As much as you appear to hate Taxachusetts and Massachusetts, let me tell you that Massachusetts is in a much better educational position than Texas. That's true in spite of it not being in the strong economical position that Texas is. You can look this up, it's documented.
Texas could be a much better state but people like George W. Bush have kept it back in order to help the Texans who need the least help. The truth is that these people I call Hero Hating pro-Bushite Republicans help the wealthy and forget the average and poor Texan. Yet, they think of themselves as Christians. Well, sorry but that's one thing that they're not.
Your POST follows:
"I live in Massachusetts and know first hand how Kerry is not good for this Country. Has anyone ever heard of Taxachusetts it is right in the middle of Massachusetts. Vote Bush, he is a straight shooter and not a double talker like Kerry."
Posted by: Joyce at October 9, 2004 09:43 AM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 11, 2004 05:38 PM
Joyce is right, I am from Texas as is Abel and President Bush is a straight talker. Any reasonable person can see that by just listening. Just one more good reason to vote for President Bush in November.
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at October 12, 2004 01:45 AM
Abel
If democrats aren't for outsourcing, why was NAFTA passed during the Clinton administration?
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 13, 2004 02:28 PM
Abel,
John Edwards, not George Bush called Saddam Hussein an immenent threat. "I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country." John Edwards, on CNN Late Edition, Febuary 24, 2002. I've asked you before to show me the quote from the President but still haven't seen it!
John Kerry went further. He said "With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?
Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?
It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations.
All those miscalculations are compounded by the rest of history. A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.
I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future. It is the total of all of these acts that provided the foundation for the world's determination in 1991 at the end of the gulf war that Saddam Hussein must: unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless underinternational supervision of his chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems... [and] unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-usable material.
Saddam Hussein signed that agreement. Saddam Hussein is in office today because of that agreement. It is the only reason he survived in 1991. In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.
I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.
He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."
TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR
October 9, 2002
Of Course that was before Howard Dean was beating him the Iowa Caucus. Now he's changed his mind.
Now he's saying something entirely different. He's putting on his nuance.
Read the President's speech again and stop claiming he said things he never said. To say otherwise is a lie. It was John Edwards who called him an immenent threat, not the President and it was John Kerry who argued that Saddum must be stopped because of the threat he directed at this country.
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 13, 2004 02:43 PM
More of John Kerry's lies and mispresentations of the facts! John Kerry has been going around the country quoting Paul Bremer. Here's what Paul Bremer has to say about those comments.
"I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush. Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism." --Paul Bremer
And to add to the speech notes from Kerry on the floor of the Senate in Septemeber of 2002 he also said this:
"By standing with the President, Congress would demonstrate our Nation is united in its determination to take away that arsenal, and we are affirming the President's right and responsibility to keep the American people safe. One of the lessons I learned from fighting in a very different war, at a different time, is we need the consent of the American people for our mission to be legitimate and sustainable. I do know what it means, as does Senator Hagel, to fight in a war where that consent is lost, where allies are in short supply, where conditions are hostile, and the mission is ill-defined. That is why I believe so strongly before one American soldier steps foot on Iraqi soil, the American people must understand completely its urgency. They need to know we put our country in the position of ultimate strength and that we have no options, short of war, to eliminate a threat we could not tolerate.
So I believe the Senate will make it clear, and the country will make it clear, that we will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons, and we will not permit the United Nations--an institution we have worked hard to nurture and create--to simply be ignored by this dictator."
Since Kerry has now taken a totally different view on the war, was he lying to us then or is he lying to us now. Apparently we are supposed to put him in office to find out and that's not a risk I'm willing to take. When it comes to the war on terrorism, I want somebody who resolutely stays the course and doesn't change with the political wind for voter approval ratings.
Both the President and John Kerry had access to information during this time that we will never see. I have read many of the different Senators statements during this critical time and based on the reports they read at the time, this was the right course of action to take. Then it was the right war at the right time. Now John Kerry says no. That might change tomorrow, but for now he's saying no. If he felt the way he did in 2002, I have no reason to believe, based solely on his statements that if he was President he would have taken out country to war, even without the support of the UN or France and Germany. He supported the President then and he went on the record many times of his support. He even warned of the dangers we would face in going to war but cited them as a necessary risk to end the threat of terrorism. Now, he wants to go back to the gold ole days when terrorism was just a nusance, like prosititution and gambling. This, to me, is a man with no moral conviction or backbone. Once the troops were committed, turning his back on them and not voting to fund them was a bad choice, he himself said so before he voted against the funding. Yes, somebody is lying to us about Iraq. That somebody is John Kerry. He can't have it both ways and his own words condemn him.
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 13, 2004 03:06 PM
Abel post follows:
For your information, our party is currently out of power, so what power are you talking about? Your party controls the Judicial Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch and the last I heard, that's all there is. So you folks have all the power right now. We don't hate you---we just don't trust you anymore because of all your lies.
Unfornunatly Abel your party will remain powerless in the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch as long as your party nominates people from the far left. You should have learned a lesson from the election of 2002. When long-term respected democrats like Senator Zell Miller(Keynote speaker for Clinton) Senator Joe Lieberman (2000 democratic Vice President candidate) and formor Democratic Mayor of New York City Ed Koch believe that what George Bush is doing is right against the war on terror, you party will remain powerless
What you have to do Abel is calm down close your eyes take a deep breath and try to understand why these people that I've just mentioned support George Bush in the war on terror. Do some research, you seem to be pretty savvy on the web.
Posted by: Mike NY at October 16, 2004 09:48 PM
Jim Rodkey,
Democrats were talking about outsourcing American products. Aren't you for that too? We weren't talking about outsourcing our jobs.
Your POST follows:
"Abel, If democrats aren't for outsourcing, why was NAFTA passed during the Clinton administration?"
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 13, 2004 02:28 PM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 18, 2004 05:16 PM
Abel
Democrats were talking about outsourcing American products. Aren't you for that too? We weren't talking about outsourcing our jobs. Abels answer to a question, Why was NAFTA passed by Dem's who were in control the congress and President. No Abel, they understood what NAFTA was and is. Most people in govenment thought that free trade was a give and take and we would do better in the exchange. So stop with the evil republicans did it. Yes republicans favored it but democrates controlled the vote and it passed. Unless you believe democrates are to stupid to understand the NAFTA law thay helpped pass they can take the credit and blame in equal messure. I am not sure that I like NAFTA or not but I understand it and believe both parties understood it when it passed. So good or bad there was bipartision support for it and bipartision blame if it's not working as well as planned. Vote for a Leader Bush/Cheney 04 lets win this war on terror then we can worry about the small stuff like NAFTA. 4 more years Bush/Cheney
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at October 19, 2004 05:02 AM
Abel,
Go back and read the NAFTA draft and the discussion on the floor. They understood fully that NAFTA would give American companies the opportunity to set up shop in other countries to generate jobs and economic growth in those countries which they believed would help the American Market. People like Pat Buchanan spoke out openly against this and it was a major issue in the 1992 Presidential debate. Read President Clinton Speech when he announced the passing of NAFTA. It was not just about selling good in foreign markets, it was also about allowing American companies to set up shop in foreign soil to create competition. Maybe it's another one of those things that you misunderstood, like what the President said in his speech in Cincinatti before we went to war and still haven't given me the quotes for. By the way, I happen to think that NAFTA was a good thing. It helped to break the back of Union control in America. That should make you real happy. Maybe someday foolish Democrats will learn that all the Democrats really want is your vote, and then they will do what they want and then go on television and blame the Republicans for everything. You should spend more time at factcheck.org and less time watching the Communist News Network (CNN) and the Communist Spreading Agency of Near-truths (CSPAN).
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 20, 2004 02:24 PM
Voted today October 22, 2004, long lines in Houston Tx and most of the chater was Bush related. Texas will go for Bush in a landslide, He was a great gov. and President. I of course voted for Bush and am proud to say he will carry the Pop and electorial vote this time around. This election is in the bag, may look close but from an electorial point of view Bush gets 300+ electoral vote this time around. Vote for a leader Bush/Cheney 4 more years.
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at October 22, 2004 05:57 PM
Bruce,
I hope you won't be too disappointed come November 2, 2004. Long lines usually spell trouble for CMBLHHPB Republicans---you know how CMBLHHPB Republicans work, they usually want to diminish the vote, not increase it---the smaller the vote count, the better their chances. That's why CMBLHHPBR threw out so many legal votes last 2,000 in Florida. But whatever happens, we'll probably deserve it.
Your POST follows:
"Voted today October 22, 2004, long lines in Houston Tx and most of the chater was Bush related. Texas will go for Bush in a landslide, He was a great gov. and President. I of course voted for Bush and am proud to say he will carry the Pop and electorial vote this time around. This election is in the bag, may look close but from an electorial point of view Bush gets 300+ electoral vote this time around. Vote for a leader Bush/Cheney 4 more years."
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at October 22, 2004 05:57 PM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 26, 2004 01:16 AM
Abel
Thanks for reminding the posters to this message board of my proud vote for President Bush, a great wartime leader. Abel I believe you said your from Texas and even you know the long lines in Texas is only great news for Bush. He will win in Texas by a land slide. As for nationally he will win by a wider margin then expected I think. As for electoral votes he will have over 300. That is a prediction from a citizen I only have the mojority of polls as prove, and my own confidence in the American people. Vote for G.W. Bush for President. Thanks.
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at October 26, 2004 03:23 AM
This country is going down the drain with GW Junior. This is absolutely one of the worst (WORST) presidents this country ever had. He deserved applause for his actions since 9/11 but he misled every one of us on this war. Not to mention meetings shrouded in secrecy that rewrite our laws, big tax give-aways to the wealthy, our image in the world, a poorly planned war, a divided and polarized country not seen since the Civil War, job losses, the compromising of our rights because of radical right-wing judges, and so on and so forth. Vote Kerry/Edwards and give Bush/Cheney the pink slip.
This website must be created by GW Junior's supporters since it's dominated by republicans.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: D Jones at October 27, 2004 01:18 PM
President Bush will go down in history as a great leader, He is a very good man and a great President. Thanks.
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at October 27, 2004 04:29 PM
d. jones
Bush did NOT polarize this country. He has stuck to his positions since 9/11. It's the dum dums who chickened out, whined, claimed gloom and doom and quagmires, depressions, hoovervilles, need I go on?
Blame Kerry and his minions for dividing this country - not Bush.
Posted by: Calamity Jane at October 27, 2004 11:10 PM
Yep, Abel, you shore do luv to use them hifalutin' words-n-letters. I knowd somewon who had CMBLHHPBR oncst- crittur byt 'im and he went'n'done had to git shots for it. Maybe if'n you says what youse mean and not hide behind silly acronyms you think are so impressive but the rest of us find annoying, you might not look so ridiculous in print. Say it in words- Bush will win- Kerry will lose and go back to being an independently wealthy (at least until Theresa divorces him) junior mis-representitive from Massachusetts. You can bet your A-1 sauce on it.
Posted by: Dave at October 28, 2004 08:47 PM
Tell me, Calamity Jane, how is Kerry responsible for dividing and polarizing this country if he's not even the one in the White House? Are you on drugs? GW Junior is the one who is responsible for dividing us, not Kerry. Look at how the nation is divided over the justification of the Iraq War and whether it is worth it. Kerry wasn't the president when that invasion happened so it's not his fault. Look at how GW Junior is proposing a gay marriage amendment - another issue that divides us. Right-wingers like you blame left-wingers for everything so you are just wrong.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004!
Posted by: d. jones at October 29, 2004 01:42 PM
You say, "...silly acronyms...you think are so impressive but the rest of us find annoying,..." The fact that you CMBLHHPBRs use up a lot of words while saying very little that makes sense or means anything, is not my fault.
Frankly, you folks are now supporting a President who lost about 500 tons of dangerous explosives and you still do not consider him a failure. Osama bin Laden has now personally attacked your boy George W. Bush---thus making it more difficult for John Kerry to win the election come November 2, 2004 and you fellows cannot read anything negative into that. Well, it's obvious to me that bin Laden wants George to continue his recruiting duties for the Terrorists but you guys are incapable to even see that.
Surely you must understand why I have been calling you Close Minded Brainwashed Lying Hero Hating Pro-Bushite Republicans (CMBLHHPBR). I'm just grateful that not too many Republicans are like you. Most Republicans, I think, are honorable people and they are now rethinking how they're going to vote come November 2, 2004.
You say about my acronyms that "...the rest of us find annoying." Why don't you CMBLHHPBRs ever speak for yourselves and not attempt to speak for everyone else. There are some decent people who read our POSTs as well. Don't think that you CMBLHHPBR are the only ones!
Your POST follows:
"Yep, Abel, you shore do luv to use them hifalutin' words-n-letters. I knowd somewon who had CMBLHHPBR oncst- crittur byt 'im and he went'n'done had to git shots for it. Maybe if'n you says what youse mean and not hide behind silly acronyms you think are so impressive but the rest of us find annoying, you might not look so ridiculous in print. Say it in words- Bush will win- Kerry will lose and go back to being an independently wealthy (at least until Theresa divorces him) junior mis-representitive from Massachusetts. You can bet your A-1 sauce on it."
Posted by: Dave at October 28, 2004 08:47 PM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 29, 2004 09:04 PM
The article below is not meant to be read by CMBLHHPBRs as it'll make them too sick to describe. If you CMBLHHPBRs insist on reading this article, don't be saying that you weren't warned.
LET ME ASSURE YOU THAT it's safe for Honorable Republicans and others to read.
THE ARTICLE FOLLOWS:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-scheer26oct26,1,3875008.column
ROBERT SCHEER
The Man Behind the Oval Office Curtain
It's Cheney's administration, and it's a shame.
Robert Scheer
October 26, 2004
Can this nation survive four more years of Dick Cheney running the show? Probably, but it is a risk that few thoughtful Americans, conservatives included, should want to take.
Whatever one thinks of George W. Bush - do you see a smile or a smirk? - it is now patently obvious that the most powerful vice president in U.S. history is in charge of the White House. Cheney's ultra-secretive, anti-democratic and crony-capitalist instincts have defined this administration.
Perhaps we should have expected all this from a man who, as head of the Bush vice presidential search team, selected himself. It was a forewarning of the Machiavellian arrogance that has made him the leading individual in an administration that has consistently believed that self-serving ends - such as helping Enron at the expense of California's energy needs or boosting Halliburton's profits at the expense of American troops - justify lying, secrecy and preemptive war.
In the hours after the 9/11 massacres, some Americans may have been reassured to have the older Cheney around at a time when the "real" president was confusedly sitting in a classroom listening to a story about a pet goat. However, in hindsight, this was clearly misguided faith in a man who presents himself as a stern father figure but is just an irresponsible ideologue whose disrespect and disregard for the U.S. Constitution are manifest in all his actions.
It was the vice president who served as the power behind a tiny group of fringe right-wing lawyers that secretly created a system of unaccountable White House-controlled military tribunals. Despite indelibly staining America's reputation as a leader in democratic principles and endangering the lives of American prisoners of war in current and future conflicts, these proceedings have proved totally useless in the war on terror, with zero terror convictions to date.
Never mind: After the tribunals decree was signed by Bush, Cheney was off leading a new misguided crusade, deploying a slew of manipulated and misrepresented intelligence factoids, clever innuendoes and outright lies to fool Congress and the public into supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
As the Washington Post's Bob Woodward reports in "Plan of Action," his insider account of the Bush White House, Secretary of State Colin Powell "detected a kind of fever in Cheney?. Cheney was beyond hellbent for action against Saddam. It was as if nothing else existed."
And through the reports of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee and 9/11 commission, and an exhaustive compilation released last week by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) of the Senate Armed Services Committee, it is now possible to read in excruciating detail about Cheney's role in convincing a majority of Americans that ? strong evidence to the contrary - Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, was moving toward the production of nuclear bombs and was an ally of Al Qaeda.
As recently as June and contrary to the 9/11 commission's final report, to give but one of many examples, Cheney was still insisting that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta had a meeting in Prague with a high-ranking Iraqi intelligence agent before the 9/11 attacks. This is an unconscionable and obviously knowing use of the Big Lie technique, given that the CIA and FBI repudiated that baseless yet titillating claim in 2002.
Lately, as the war has become an unmitigated disaster for the United States and Iraq, Cheney and the president have been on the defensive against charges by numerous terrorism experts - and presidential candidate John F. Kerry - that the invasion of Iraq was a dangerous distraction from the fight against Al Qaeda and its affiliates.
Undaunted, Cheney tells us the Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has been blamed for many anti-American attacks in Iraq, originally entered Iraq with Hussein's permission; thus Cheney tries to post facto justify the invasion as a legitimate pillar of the war on terror. But it's just another lie, with the CIA stating the opposite: The fundamentalist Zarqawi first sneaked into Hussein's secular and nationalist dictatorship using a false identity.
That Cheney clearly has a huge personal interest in the war makes all of this that much more sickening.
The latest report in a never-ending stream of conflict-of-interest revelations about this administration appears in the current issue of Time magazine. It detailed how the Pentagon favored Halliburton - which Cheney headed from 1995 until 2000 - with long-term, no-bid contracts. No problem. In Cheney's world, messianic ambition and personal greed can happily co-exist.
Next Tuesday, voters should retire this malevolent force.
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-scheer26oct26,1,3875008.column
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 29, 2004 10:39 PM
d.
Why don't you understand about why this country is divided?
When people hear every day for over a year about the wrong war, wrong place, wrong this, wrong that, blah blah blah - some start believing it. This division started once the presidential race started - I blame the Dems for the division of our country. Kerry is still doing it and will continue to do so - until Nov 2nd. Then it's over and Kerry can finally stop talking. HE is a major bore!!
Posted by: Calamity Jane at October 29, 2004 10:58 PM
Abel you wrote, rather, mentioned:
Frankly, you folks are now supporting a President who lost about 500 tons of dangerous explosives....
First you say there were none.
Then you say he lost them.
There WAS a weapon of mass destruction found by the Bush Administration.
We dragged him out of his woodchuck hole.
Abel, don't forget to vote November 3.
Posted by: Dave at October 31, 2004 02:58 PM
Abel,
I did not realize your lies were on this blog as well. I wish I knew sooner, now I feel my work is incomplete. Well let me set that straight.
500 tons of explosives? It was less but whats a couple hundred more tons between friends?
I thought Iraq had no WMDs? If you think these explosives are not WMDs, than why are we worried about some explosives that are overseas anyway?
If you try and say that the terrorists might get them and use them against us, I would say it is a good thing we destroyed 1000 times that amount.
If you say that Saddam was not a threat, I would ask why did Kerry and Edwards think he WAS a threat? Yes I said WAS, because Bush ended that threat with the help of people like Kerry and Edwards who do not want to take credit for it now.
Well Abel, keep up the lies and propaganda.
See you at the Bush inaguration. Wait, do they inagurate a president for his second term? Oh well.
Happy Halloween.
Posted by: Wayne at October 31, 2004 10:51 PM
Dave,
Yea, your man George W. Bush managed to "forget" to tell the troops to secure the special "explosives" once they reached the area where it was being kept.
The UN that had been previously responsible for keeping it secure, told George and his cohorts to be sure to keep it under strict security because the "explosives" were of fine quality and produced more power than regular explosives.
George apparently had too much work to do, so he forgot to pass the word on. The first soldiers reaching the dump opened the seals and left the "explosives" unguarded because they didn't get the word from George W. Bush. Can you believe that George W. Bush is such a failure and incompetent? The pro-Bushite Republicans were saying, "Oh well, it was only about 500 tons so what harm can that do?"
One more thing, don't think that these explosives were "Weapons of Mass Destruction" because they weren't. Never-the-less, they were more dangerous than regular types of explosives and that's why the UN had been previously been taking care of them. You know, keeping them safe from Saddam and his cohorts.
Your POST follows:
"Abel you wrote, rather, mentioned:
Frankly, you folks are now supporting a President who lost about 500 tons of dangerous explosives....
First you say there were none.
Then you say he lost them.
There WAS a weapon of mass destruction found by the Bush Administration.
We dragged him out of his woodchuck hole.
Abel, don't forget to vote November 3."
Posted by: Dave at October 31, 2004 02:58 PM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 1, 2004 02:23 AM
Abel
You are full of stuff, explosives, keep you day job your not good at comedy. Kerry lies you believe, Kerry trashes the troops in the field you eco him. Kerry flip floops and you don't see it. Are you deaf, blind? Abel tell the truth, WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING SON?
VOTE BUSH/CHENEY KEEP THE COUNTRY FREE AND STRONG. THANKS.
Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at November 1, 2004 04:05 PM
Abel, get a clue. Zarqawi went into Iraq by invitation when he sought medical attention that he was guaranteed by Saddam Hussein. the flase Identification wasn't for Iraq but to through of those who were tracking him. How can you keep getting this studd so wrong? You obviously read, from the constant cutting and pasting of articles from liberal sites, but the problem is your only reading the lies and not the statements of those who are there, those who have gathered intelligence and are currently gathering intelligence and have reported in both the 9/11 commission and in other intelligence gathering divisions.
Just keep basing your vote on people who don't really know because they aren't involved in the information gathering divisions and you cast your vote on information, but it will be information that is from those who are seeking to tear down America, not build it up. The 9/11 Comission connected Zarqawi to Iraq. He was trained there and he trained others there. Those are the facts no mater how you want to spin it.
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 1, 2004 05:31 PM
