« Kerry and The Bronze Star Controversy | Main | The Clash of the Titans: The First Presidential Debate »
September 26, 2004
Bush Scores Points in Florida
While Florida is undergoing through brutal weather conditions, with repeated hurricanes followed by mandatory evacuations and winds approaching the coast at 115 mph, President Bush continues to get a clear forecast in the "Sunshine State."
After the Republican National Convention, Bush has bounced back and is showing in recent polls a significant lead in the battleground state of Florida.
With the first Presidential Debate starting in Florida on September 30, 2004, both Republican and Democratic Parties are counting on leaving a lasting impression on Florida voters; especially when the final outcome of the presidential election may once again rest on Florida.
If Bush shows an outstanding performance, he will have a considerable lead with the following battleground states, but a strong demonstration from Kerry can easily turn the tables around. "The debates are horribly important. They could actually be decisive if they turn a certain way," states Garry South, a Democratic strategist.
Posted by Tuck at September 26, 2004 10:27 PM
Comments
I believe President Bush will win this debate because of his stance on the war on terror. This to me is the issue that I hold dear to my hart. I don't trust J.F.K. to be able to hold a posission long enough to even get through the debate.
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at September 27, 2004 02:30 AM
John Kerry's Flip Flops
Flip Flopped On Trade With China
In 1991, Kerry Supported Most-Favored Trade Status For China. ?Sen. John Kerry said yesterday that he is breaking party ranks to support most-favored-nation trade status for China ? ?I think the president has some strong arguments about some of the assets of most-favored-nation status for China,? Kerry said.? (John Aloysius Farrell, ?Kerry Breaks Party Ranks To Back China Trade Status,? The Boston Globe, 6/15/91)
In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Passed 83-15: R 46-8; D 37-7, 9/19/00, Kerry Voted Yea)
Now Kerry Criticizes The Bush Administration For Trading With China. ?Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Monday Americans workers were paying the price for President Bush's weak stance on trade with China and other countries. ? On the bus tour, Kerry singled out the Bush administration's handling of trade with China and said that country was manipulating its currency.? (Caren Bohan, "Kerry Pledges Aggressive Trade Stance," Reuters, 4/26/04)
Flip-Flopped On Iraq War
Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea.)
In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President?s Action In Iraq. KERRY: ?George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.? (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)
Kerry Later Claimed He Voted ?To Threaten? Use Of Force In Iraq. ?I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.? (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)
Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: ?Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it?s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?? KERRY: ?I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don?t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.? (MSNBC?s ?Hardball,? 1/6/04)
Flip-Flopped On Eliminating Marriage Penalty For Middle Class
Kerry Said He Will Fight To Keep Tax Relief For Married Couples. ?Howard Dean and Gephardt are going to put the marriage penalty back in place. So if you get married in America, we?re going to charge you more taxes. I do not want to do that.? (Fox News? ?Special Report,? 10/23/03)
Said Democrats Fought To End Marriage Penalty Tax. ?We fought hard to get rid of the marriage penalty.? (MSNBC?s ?News Live,? 7/31/03)
But, In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief For Married Taxpayers With Combined Incomes Less Than $50,000 Per Year, Saving Taxpayers $46 Billion Over 10 Years. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea)
Flip-Flopped On Patriot Act
Kerry Voted For Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House. (H.R. 3162, CQ Vote #313: Passed 98-1: R 49-0; D 48-1; I 1-0, 10/25/01, Kerry Voted Yea)
Kerry Used To Defend His Vote. ?Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th.? (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Manchester, NH, 8/6/03)
Now, Kerry Attacks Patriot Act. ?We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I?ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American?s basic rights.? (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State University, 12/1/03)
Kerry Took BOTH Sides On First Gulf War
Kerry Took BOTH Sides In First Gulf War In Separate Letters To Same Constituent. ?Rather than take a side--albeit the one he thought was most expedient--Kerry actually stood on both sides of the first Gulf war, much like he did this time around. Consider this ?Notebook? item from TNR?s March 25, 1991 issue, which ran under the headline ?Same Senator, Same Constituent?: ?Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war.? --letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991] ?Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush?s response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.? --Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]? (Noam Scheiber, ?Noam Scheiber?s Daily Journal of Politics, The New Republic Online, 1/28/04)
Flip-Flopped On Gay Marriage Amendment
In 2002, Kerry Signed Letter ?Urging? MA Legislature To Reject Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage. ?We rarely comment on issues that are wholly within the jurisdiction of the General Court, but there are occasions when matters pending before you are of such significance to all residents of the Commonwealth that we think it appropriate for us to express our opinion. One such matter is the proposed Constitutional amendment that would prohibit or seriously inhibit any legal recognition whatsoever of same-sex relationships. We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents. ? We are therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment and avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to be treated in such a manner.? (Sen. John Kerry, et al, Letter To Members Of The Massachusetts Legislature, 7/12/02)
Now, In 2004, Kerry Won?t Rule Out Supporting Similar Amendment. ?Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn?t rule out the possibility. ?I?ll have to see what language there is,? he said.? (Susan Milligan, ?Kerry Says GOP May Target Him On ?Wedge Issue,?? The Boston Globe, 2/6/04)
Flip-Flopped On Attacking President During Time Of War
In March 2003, Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began. ?Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts ? said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. ?It?s what you owe the troops,? said a statement from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. ?I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won?t speak a word without measuring how it?ll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they?re listening to their radios in the desert.?? (Glen Johnson, ?Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric,? The Boston Globe, 3/11/03)
But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His Pledge. ??What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,? Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library. Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.? (Glen Johnson, ?Kerry Says Us Needs Its Own ?Regime Change,?? The Boston Globe, 4/3/03)
Flip-Flopped On Death Penalty For Terrorists
In 1996, Kerry Attacked Governor Bill Weld For Supporting Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: ?Your policy would amount to a terrorist protection policy. Mine would put them in jail.? (1996 Massachusetts Senate Debate, 9/16/96)
In 1996, Kerry Said, ?You Can Change Your Mind On Things, But Not On Life-And-Death Issues.? (Timothy J. Connolly, ?The ?Snoozer? Had Some Life,? [Worcester, MA] Telegram & Gazette, 7/3/96)
But, In 2002, Kerry Said He Supported Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: ?The law of the land is the law of the land, but I have also said that I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country.? (NBC?s ?Meet The Press,? 12/1/02)
Flip-Flopped On No Child Left Behind
Kerry Voted For No Child Left Behind Act. (H.R. 1, CQ Vote #371: Adopted 87-10: R 44-3; D 43-6; I 0-1, 12/18/01, Kerry Voted Yea)
But Now Kerry Is Attacking No Child Left Behind As ?Mockery.? ?Between now and the time I?m sworn in January 2005, I?m going to use every day to make this president accountable for making a mockery of the words ?No Child Left Behind.?? (Holly Ramer, ?Kerry Wants To Make ?Environmental Justice? A Priority,? The Associated Press, 4/22/03)
Kerry Trashed NCLB As ?Unfunded Mandate? With ?Laudable? Goals. ?Kerry referred to [No Child Left Behind] as an ?unfunded mandate? with ?laudable? goals. ?Without the resources, education reform is a sham,? Kerry said. ?I can?t wait to crisscross this country and hold this president accountable for making a mockery of the words ?no child left behind.??? (Matt Leon, ?Sen. Kerry In Tune With Educators,? The [Quincy, MA] Patriot Ledger, 7/11/03)
Flip-Flopped On Affirmative Action
In 1992, Kerry Called Affirmative Action ?Inherently Limited And Divisive.? ?[W]hile praising affirmative action as ?one kind of progress? that grew out of civil rights court battles, Kerry said the focus on a rights-based agenda has ?inadvertently driven most of our focus in this country not to the issue of what is happening to the kids who do not get touched by affirmative action, but ? toward an inherently limited and divisive program which is called affirmative action.? That agenda is limited, he said, because it benefits segments of black and minority populations, but not all. And it is divisive because it creates a ?perception and a reality of reverse discrimination that has actually engendered racism.?? (Lynne Duke, ?Senators Seek Serious Dialogue On Race,? The Washington Post, 4/8/92)
In 2004, Kerry Denied Ever Having Called Affirmative Action ?Divisive.? CNN?s KELLY WALLACE: ?We caught up with the Senator, who said he never called affirmative action divisive, and accused Clark of playing politics.? SEN. KERRY: ?That?s not what I said. I said there are people who believe that. And I said mend it, don?t end it. He?s trying to change what I said, but you can go read the quote. I said very clearly I have always voted for it. I?ve always supported it. I?ve never, ever condemned it. I did what Jim Clyburn did and what Bill Clinton did, which is mend it. And Jim Clyburn wouldn?t be supporting it if it were otherwise. So let?s not have any politics here. Let?s keep the truth.? (CNN?s ?Inside Politics,? 1/30/04)
Flip-Flopped On Ethanol
Kerry Twice Voted Against Tax Breaks For Ethanol. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #44: Rejected 48-52: R 11-32; D 37-20, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #68: Motion Agreed To 55-43: R 2-40; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
Kerry Voted Against Ethanol Mandates. (H.R. 4624, CQ Vote #255: Motion Agreed To 51-50: R 19-25; D 31-25, 8/3/94, Kerry Voted Nay)
Kerry Voted Twice To Increase Liability On Ethanol, Making It Equal To Regular Gasoline. (S. 517, CQ Vote #87: Motion Agreed To 57-42: R 38-10; D 18-32; I 1-0, 4/25/02 Kerry Voted Nay; S. 14, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 38-57: R 9-40; D 28-17; I 1-0, 6/5/03, Kerry Voted Yea)
On The Campaign Trail, Though, Kerry Is For Ethanol. KERRY: ?I?m for ethanol, and I think it?s a very important partial ingredient of the overall mix of alternative and renewable fuels we ought to commit to.? (MSNBC/DNC, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Des Moines, IA, 11/24/03)
Flip-Flopped On Cuba Sanctions
Senator Kerry Has Long Voted Against Stronger Cuba Sanctions. (H.R. 927, CQ Vote #489, Motion Rejected 59-36: R 50-2; D 9-34, 10/17/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 955, CQ Vote #183: Rejected 38-61: R 5-49; D 33-12, 7/17/97, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1234, CQ Vote #189, Motion Agreed To 55-43: R 43-10; D 12-33, 6/30/99, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2549, CQ Vote #137: Motion Agreed To 59-41: R 52-3; D 7-38, 6/20/00, Kerry Voted Nay)
In 2000, Kerry Said Florida Politics Is Only Reason Cuba Sanctions Still In Place. ?Senator John F. Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview that a reevaluation of relations with Cuba was ?way overdue.? ?We have a frozen, stalemated, counterproductive policy that is not in humanitarian interests nor in our larger credibility interest in the region,? Kerry said. ? ?It speaks volumes about the problems in the current American electoral process. ? The only reason we don?t reevaluate the policy is the politics of Florida.?? (John Donnelly, ?Policy Review Likely On Cuba,? The Boston Globe, 4/9/00)
Now Kerry Panders To Cuban Vote, Saying He Would Not Lift Embargo Against Cuba. TIM RUSSERT: ?Would you consider lifting sanctions, lifting the embargo against Cuba?? SEN. KERRY: ?Not unilaterally, not now, no.? (NBC?s ?Meet The Press,? 8/31/03)
Kerry Does Not Support ?Opening Up The Embargo Wily Nilly.? ?Kerry said he believes in ?engagement? with the communist island nation but that does not mean, ?Open up the dialogue.? He believes it ?means travel and perhaps even remittances or cultural exchanges? but he does not support ?opening up the embargo wily nilly.?? (Daniel A. Ricker, ?Kerry Says Bush Did Not Build A ?Legitimate Coalition? In Iraq,? The Miami Herald, 11/25/03)
Flip-Flopped On NAFTA
Kerry Voted For NAFTA. (H.R. 3450, CQ Vote #395: Passed 61-38: R 34-10; D 27-28, 11/20/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
Kerry Recognized NAFTA Is Our Future. ??NAFTA recognizes the reality of today?s economy - globalization and technology,? Kerry said. ?Our future is not in competing at the low-level wage job; it is in creating high-wage, new technology jobs based on our skills and our productivity.?? (John Aloysius Farrell, ?Senate?s OK Finalizes NAFTA Pact,? The Boston Globe, 11/21/93)
Now, Kerry Expresses Doubt About NAFTA. ?Kerry, who voted for NAFTA in 1993, expressed some doubt about the strength of free-trade agreements. ?If it were before me today, I would vote against it because it doesn?t have environmental or labor standards in it,? he said.? (David Lightman, ?Democrats Battle For Labor?s Backing,? Hartford Courant, 8/6/03)
Flip-Flopped On Double Taxation Of Dividends
December 2002: Kerry Favored Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. ?[T]o encourage investments in the jobs of the future - I think we should eliminate the tax on capital gains for investments in critical technology companies - zero capital gains on $100 million issuance of stock if it?s held for 5 years and has created real jobs. And we should attempt to end the double taxation of dividends.? (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At The City Club Of Cleveland, 12/3/02)
May 2003: Kerry Said He Opposed Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. ?Kerry also reiterated his opposition to the Republican plan to cut taxes on stock dividends. ?This is not the time for a dividends tax cut that goes to individuals,? he said.? (?Kerry Says Time Is On Dems? Side,? The Associated Press, 5/8/03)
Flip-Flopped On Raising Taxes During Economic Downturn
September 2001: Said Should Not Raise Taxes In Economic Downturn. ?The first priority is the economy of our nation. And when you have a downturn in the economy, the last thing you do is raise taxes or cut spending. We shouldn?t do either. We need to maintain a course that hopefully will stimulate the economy. . . . No, we should not raise taxes, but we have to put everything on the table to take a look at why we have this structural problem today. . . .[Y]ou don?t want to raise taxes.? (NBC?s ?Meet The Press,? 9/2/01)
We Should ?Absolutely Not Raise Taxes.? ?Well, I think it?s very clear what I favor because we voted for it early in the spring, which was the Democratic budget alternative that had triggers in it where you didn?t wind up spending money you don?t have. It had a smaller tax cut but more tax cut for a stimulus, which is what we need. So you ask me, what do we need now? Yes, we need additional stimulus. We should absolutely not raise taxes. We should not cut spending. What we need to do is drive the economy of this country. The economy is the number one issue. It is the most important thing we should focus on.? (CNN?s ?Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,? 9/8/01)
April 2002: Said He Wanted Larger Tax Cut And Was ?Not In Favor Of? Repeal. CNN?s TUCKER CARLSON: ?Senator Kerry . . . [many Democrats] [g]et a lot of political mileage out of criticizing [President Bush?s tax cut], but nobody has the courage to say repeal it. Are you for repealing it?? KERRY: ?It?s not a question of courage. . . . And it?s not an issue right now. We passed appropriately a tax cut as a stimulus, some $40 billion. Many of us thought it should have even maybe been a little bit larger this last year ? [T]he next tax cut doesn?t take effect until 2004. If we can grow the economy enough between now and then, if we have sensible policies in place and make good choices, who knows what our choices will be. So it?s simply not a ripe issue right now. And I?m not in favor of turning around today and repealing it.? (CNN?s ?Crossfire,? 4/16/02)
December 2002: Flip-Flopped, Would Keep Tax Cuts From Taking Effect. NBC?s TIM RUSSERT: ?Senator . . . should we freeze or roll back the Bush tax cut?? KERRY: ?Well, I wouldn?t take away from people who?ve already been given their tax cut ? What I would not do is give any new Bush tax cuts.? ? RUSSERT: ?So the tax cut that?s scheduled to be implemented in the coming years ?? KERRY: ?No new tax cut under the Bush plan. . . . It doesn?t make economic sense.? ? RUSSERT: ?Now, this is a change ?? (NBC?s ?Meet The Press,? 12/1/02)
Called For Freeze Of Bush Tax Cuts In Favor Of Year-Long Suspension Of Payroll Taxes On First $10,000 Of Personal Income. ?Kerry said Bush?s tax cuts have mainly benefited the rich while doing little for the economy. Kerry is proposing to halt Bush?s additional tax cuts and instead impose a yearlong suspension of payroll taxes on the first $10,000 of income to help the poor and middle class.? (Tyler Bridges, ?Kerry Visits Miami To Start Raising Funds,? The Miami Herald, 12/7/02)
Flip-Flopped On Small Business Income Taxes
Kerry Voted Against Exempting Small Businesses And Family Farms From Clinton Income Tax Increase. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #79: Motion Agreed To 54-45: R 0-43; D 54-2, 3/25/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
Three Months Later, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Proposal To Exclude Small Businesses From The Increased Income Tax. (S. 1134, CQ Vote #171: Motion Rejected 56-42: R 43-0; D 13-42, 6/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
Kerry Claimed He Fought To Exempt Small Businesses From Income Tax Increases. ?I worked to amend the reconciliation bill so that it would ? exempt small businesses who are classified as subchapter S corporations from the increased individual income tax.? (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 6/29/93, p. S 8268)
Kerry Flip-Flopped On 50-Cent Gas Tax Increase
In 1994, Kerry Backed Half-Dollar Increase In Gas Tax. ?Kerry said [the Concord Coalition?s scorecard] did not accurately reflect individual lawmakers? efforts to cut the deficit. ?It doesn?t reflect my $43 billion package of cuts or my support for a 50-cent increase in the gas tax,? Kerry said.? (Jill Zuckman, ?Deficit-Watch Group Gives High Marks To 7 N.E. Lawmakers,? The Boston Globe, 3/1/94)
Two Years Later, Kerry Flip-Flopped. ?Kerry no longer supports the 50-cent [gas tax] hike, nor the 25-cent hike proposed by the [Concord] coalition.? (Michael Grunwald, ?Kerry Gets Low Mark On Budgeting,? The Boston Globe, 4/30/96)
Flip-Flopped On Leaving Abortion Up To States
Kerry Used To Say Abortion Should Be Left Up To States. ?I think the question of abortion is one that should be left for the states to decide,? Kerry said during his failed 1972 Congressional bid. (?John Kerry On The Issues,? The [Lowell, MA] Sun, 10/11/72)
Now Kerry Says Abortion Is Law Of Entire Nation. ?The right to choose is the law of the United States. No person has the right to infringe on that freedom. Those of us who are in government have a special responsibility to see to it that the United States continues to protect this right, as it must protect all rights secured by the constitution.? (Sen. John Kerry [D-MA], Congressional Record, 1/22/85)
Flip-Flopped On Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees
Kerry Used To Oppose Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees. ?Throughout two centuries, our federal judiciary has been a model institution, one which has insisted on the highest standards of conduct by our public servants and officials, and which has survived with undiminished respect. Today, I fear that this institution is threatened in a way that we have not seen before. ? This threat is that of the appointment of a judiciary which is not independent, but narrowly ideological, through the systematic targeting of any judicial nominee who does not meet the rigid requirements of litmus tests imposed ?? (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 2/3/86, p. S864)
But Now Kerry Says He Would Only Support Supreme Court Nominees Who Pledge To Uphold Roe v. Wade. ?The potential retirement of Supreme Court justices makes the 2004 presidential election especially important for women, Senator John F. Kerry told a group of female Democrats yesterday, and he pledged that if elected president he would nominate to the high court only supporters of abortion rights under its Roe v. Wade decision. ? ?Any president ought to appoint people to the Supreme Court who understand the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court. In my judgment, it is and has been settled law that women, Americans, have a defined right of privacy and that the government does not make the decision with respect to choice. Individuals do.?? (Glen Johnson, ?Kerry Vows Court Picks To Be Abortion-Rights Supporters,? The Boston Globe, 4/9/03)
Flip-Flopped On Federal Health Benefits
In 1993, Kerry Expressed Doubts That Federal Employees Health Benefits System Worked Well. ?Hillary Rodham Clinton today offered a fresh description of one of the most confusing elements of the Administration health care plan, the health insurance purchasing alliances, saying they would let all Americans choose coverage in the way members of Congress do. ? Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said he was not sure that the Federal program worked all that well.? (Adam Clymer, ?Hillary Clinton Says Health Plan Will Be Familiar,? The New York Times, 12/8/93)
Kerry Expressed Personal Dissatisfaction With His Coverage Through Federal Program. ?Earlier this month, when Hillary Rodham Clinton came to Boston and vowed that average Americans would get as good coverage as that enjoyed by their senators and representatives, Sen. John F. Kerry told Clinton that he thought the country could do better. The Massachusetts Democrat said he was thinking, among other recent disasters, of his $500 dental bill for treatment of an abscessed tooth. ?Because it was done in the dentist?s office, rather than the hospital, they didn?t cover it. So they were urging me to go spend twice as much in a hospital,? said Kerry, who is covered by BACE, the Beneficial Association of Capitol Employees.? (Ana Puga, ?Lawmakers Talk Health Care,? The Boston Globe, 12/19/93)
Now, On Campaign Trail, Kerry Is Enthusiastic About Health Care He Receives As Senator. ?As a U.S. Senator, I could get the best health care in the world. Most people aren?t so lucky, and we need to change that. That?s why my plan gives every American access to the same kind of health care that members of Congress give themselves. ? Because your family?s health care is just as important as any politicians? in Washington.? (Sen. John Kerry, ?Affordable Health Care For All Americans,? Remarks At Mercy Medical, Cedar Rapids, IA, 12/14/03)
Kerry: ?I?m Going To Make Available To Every American The Same Health Care Plan That Senators And Congressmen Give Themselves ?? (Sen. John Kerry, AARP Democrat Candidate Debate, Bedford, NH, 11/18/03)
Flip-Flopped On Tax Credits For Small Business Health
In 2001, Kerry Voted Against Amendment Providing $70 Billion For Tax Credits For Small Business To Purchase Health Insurance. (H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #83: Rejected 49-51: R 48-2; D 1-49, 4/5/01, Kerry Voted Nay)
Now, Kerry Promises Refundable Tax Credits To Small Businesses For Health Coverage. ?Refundable tax credits for up to 50 percent of the cost of coverage will be offered to small businesses and their employees to make health care more affordable.? (?John Kerry?s Plan To Make Health Care Affordable To Every American,? John Kerry For President Website, www.johnkerry.com, Accessed 1/21/04)
Flip-Flopped On Health Coverage
In 1994, Kerry Said Democrats Push Health Care Too Much. ?[Kerry] said Kennedy and Clinton?s insistence on pushing health care reform was a major cause of the Democratic Party?s problems at the polls.? (Joe Battenfeld, ?Jenny Craig Hit With Sex Harassment Complaint - By Men,? Boston Herald, 11/30/94)
But Now Kerry Calls Health Care His ?Passion.? ?Sen. John Kerry says expanding coverage is ?my passion.?? (Susan Page, ?Health Specifics Could Backfire On Candidates,? USA Today, 6/2/03)
Flip-Flopped On Welfare Reform
In 1993, Kerry Voted To Kill Bipartisan Welfare Work Requirement. In 1993, Kerry and Kennedy voted against a welfare-to-work requirement that was supported by many Democrats, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Harry Reid (D-NV):
Fiscal 1993 Supplemental Appropriations - Welfare Work Requirement. ?Moynihan, D-N.Y., motion to table (kill) the D?Amato, R-N.Y., amendment to sharply cut federal welfare administration aid to states that do not, within a year, require at least 10 percent of their able-bodied welfare recipients without dependents to work. The required workfare participation rate would be increased by 2 percent a year until 50 percent were working.? (H.R. 2118, CQ Vote #163: Rejected 34-64: R 1-42; D 33-22, 6/22/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
But In 1996, Kerry Voted For Welfare Reform. (H.R. 3734, CQ Vote #262: Adopted 78-21: R 53-0; D 25-21, 8/1/96, Kerry Voted Yea)
Flip-Flops On Stock Options Expensing
Kerry Used To Oppose Expensing Stock Options. ?Democratic Senator John F. Kerry was among those fighting expensing of stock options.? (Sue Kirchhoff, ?Senate Blocks Options,? The Boston Globe, 7/16/02)
Kerry Said Expensing Options Would Not ?Benefit The Investing Public.? KERRY: ?Mr. President, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ? has proposed a rule that will require companies to amortize the value of stock options and deduct them off of their earnings statements ? I simply cannot see how the FASB rule, as proposed, will benefit the investing public.? (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 3/10/94, p. S2772)
But Now Kerry Says He Supports Carrying Of Stock Options As Corporate Expense. ?On an issue related to corporate scandals, Kerry for the first time endorsed the carrying of stock options as a corporate expense. The use of stock options was abused by some companies and contributed to overly optimistic balance sheets. Kerry applauded steps by Microsoft Corp. to eliminate stock options for employees and said all publicly traded companies should be required to expense such options.? (Dan Balz, ?Kerry Raps Bush Policy On Postwar Iraq,? The Washington Post, 7/11/03)
Flip-Flopped On Medical Marijuana
Kerry Said His ?Personal Disposition Is Open To The Issue Of Medical Marijuana.? ?Aaron Houston of the Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana said that just a month ago Mr. Kerry seemed to endorse medical marijuana use, and when asked about the content of his mysterious study, said, ?I am trying to find out. I don?t know.? Mr. Kerry did say his ?personal disposition is open to the issue of medical marijuana? and that he?d stop Drug Enforcement Administration raids on patients using the stuff under California?s medical marijuana law.? (Jennifer Harper, ?Inside Politics,? The Washington Times, 8/8/03)
But Now Kerry Says He Wants To Wait For Study Analyzing Issue Before Making Final Decision. ?The Massachusetts Democrat said Wednesday he?d put off any final decision on medical marijuana because there?s ?a study under way analyzing what the science is.?? (Jennifer Harper, ?Inside Politics,? The Washington Times, 8/8/03)
Flip-Flopped On Burma Sanctions
In 1995, Kerry Was Against Burma Sanctions. ??I question whether isolation is a successful means of promoting political change,? Kerry told a constituent in a 1995 letter justifying his opposition to a Burma sanction bill.? (Geeta Anand, et al., ?Menino Gets Ahead Of Himself, Starts Contemplating Third Term,? The Boston Globe, 5/18/97)
But Now Kerry Supports Burma Sanctions. ?In his 1996 reelection campaign, Kerry, after Governor William F. Weld took up the cause, was badgered by advisers into shifting his position. But as he eyes a presidential campaign and the Burma sanction movement gains credibility, Kerry ? describes the Burma regime as a ?semi-criminalized dictatorship ? which should not be treated with respect by other nations, but should be instead subject to limitations on travel, investment, and access to the most developed nations.?? (Geeta Anand, et al., ?Menino Gets Ahead Of Himself, Starts Contemplating Third Term,? The Boston Globe, 5/18/97)
Flip-Flopped On Military Experience As Credential For Public Office
Kerry: Service Should Not Be ?Litmus Test? For Leadership. ?Mr. President, you and I know that if support or opposition to the war were to become a litmus test for leadership, America would never have leaders or recover from the divisions created by that war. You and I know that if service or nonservice in the war is to become a test of qualification for high office, you would not have a Vice President, nor would you have a Secretary of Defense and our Nation would never recover from the divisions created by that war.? (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/08/92, p. S17709)
But Now Kerry Constantly ?Challenges The Stature Of His Democratic Opponents? Over Their Lack Of Military Service. ?And more than ever, Mr. Kerry is invoking his stature as a Vietnam veteran as he challenges the stature of his Democratic opponents -- none of whom, he frequently points out, have ?worn the uniform of our country? -- to withstand a debate with Mr. Bush on national security.? (Adam Nagourney, ?As Campaign Tightens, Kerry Sharpens Message,? The New York Times, 8/10/03)
Flip-Flopped On PACs
Kerry Used To Decry ?Special Interests And Their PAC Money.? ??I?m frequently told by cynics in Washington that refusing PAC money is naive,? Kerry told his supporters in 1985. ?Do you agree that it is ?naﶥ? to turn down special interests and their PAC money??? (Glen Johnson, ?In A Switch, Kerry Is Launching A PAC,? The Boston Globe, 12/15/01)
But Now, Kerry Has Established His Own PAC. ?A week after repeating that he has refused to accept donations from political action committees, Senator John F. Kerry announced yesterday that he was forming a committee that would accept PAC money for him to distribute to other Democratic candidates. ? Kerry?s stance on soft money, unregulated donations funneled through political parties, puts him in the position of raising the type of money that he, McCain, and others in the campaign-finance reform movement are trying to eliminate.? (Glen Johnson, ?In A Switch, Kerry Is Launching A PAC,? The Boston Globe, 12/15/01)
Flip-Flopped On $10,000 Donation Limit To His PAC
When Kerry Established His PAC In 2001, He Instituted A $10,000 Limit On Donations. ?A week after repeating that he has refused to accept donations from political action committees, Senator John F. Kerry announced yesterday that he was forming a committee that would accept PAC money for him to distribute to other Democratic candidates ? The statement also declared that the new PAC would voluntarily limit donations of so-called soft money to $10,000 per donor per year and disclose the source and amount of all such donations.? (Glen Johnson, ?In A Switch, Kerry Is Launching A Pac,? The Boston Globe, 12/15/01)
One Year Later, Kerry Started Accepting Unlimited Contributions. ?Senator John F. Kerry, who broke with personal precedent last year when he established his first political action committee, has changed his fund-raising guidelines again, dropping a $10,000 limit on contributions from individuals, a cap he had touted when establishing the PAC. The Massachusetts Democrat said yesterday he decided to accept unlimited contributions, which has already allowed him to take in ?soft money? donations as large as $25,000, because of the unprecedented fund-raising demands confronting him as a leader in the Senate Democratic caucus.? (Glen Johnson, ?Kerry Shifts Fund-Raising Credo For His Own PAC,? The Boston Globe, 10/4/02)
Flip-Flopped On Using Personal Funds In 1996 Race
In 1996, Kerry And Weld Established $500,000 Limit Of Personal Wealth To Be Used In Senate Campaign. ?In 1996, Kerry and Weld gave their already noteworthy Senate race added significance by establishing a spending cap. The candidates agreed to spend no more than $6.9 million from July 1 through the election. Weld ended up spending $6.6 million and Kerry $6.3 million. One key element of the agreement limited the candidates to spending $500,000 in personal wealth, a clause Weld favored because Kerry is married to a millionaire, Teresa Heinz.? (Glen Johnson, ?In Kerry?s Plan For A Pac, The Resolution Of Opposites,? The Boston Globe, 12/18/01)
Kerry Broke Agreement By Spending $1.2 Million Over Limit. ?[P]ost-election reports showed a last-minute infusion of $1.7 million from Kerry?s wife, heiress Teresa Heinz. ? [K]erry denied that his campaign violated its agreement. The money had been loaned--not contributed--by his wife, he explained. ?There was nothing in the agreement that restricted us from taking a loan ? and we paid it back in $1,000 and $2,000 chunks.?? (?Global Ecology Lobby Rocked By Defection,? Political Finance, The Newsletter, 1/02)
Flip-Flopped On Israel Security Fence
October 2003: Kerry Calls Fence ?Barrier To Peace.? ?And I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government?s decision to build a barrier off the green line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas. We do not need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israel?s security over the long- term, they increase hardships to the Palestinian people, and they make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder.? (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks Before Arab American Institute National Leadership Conference, Dearborn, MI, 10/17/03)
February 2004: Kerry Calls Fence ?Legitimate Act Of Self-Defense.? ?US Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, described Israel?s construction of a security barrier as a ?legitimate act of self defense? after Sunday?s suicide bombing in Jerusalem, clarifying a position he took in October when he told an Arab American audience, ?We don?t need another barrier to peace.?? (Janine Zacharia, ?Kerry Defends Security Fence,? The Jerusalem Post, 2/25/04)
Flip-Flop-Flipped On Ballistic Missile Defense
Kerry Called For Cancellation Of Missile Defense Systems In 1984 And Has Voted Against Funding For Missile Defense At Least 53 Times Between 1985 And 2000. (?John Kerry On The Defense Budget,? Campaign Position Paper, John Kerry For U.S. Senate, 1984; S. 1160, CQ Vote #99: Rejected 21-78: R 2-50; D 19-28, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1160, CQ Vote #100: Rejected 38-57: R 6-45; D 32-12, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1160, CQ Vote #101: Rejected 36-59: R 1-49; D 35-10, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1160, CQ Vote #103: Rejected 33-62: R 28-22; D 5-40, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Nay; H.J. Res. 465, CQ Vote #365: Motion Agreed To 64-32: R 49-2; D 15-30, 12/10/85, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4515, CQ Vote #122: Ruled Non-Germane 45-47: R 7-42; D 38-5, 6/6/86, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2638, CQ Vote #176: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 41-11; D 9-38, 8/5/86, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2638, CQ Vote #177: Rejected 49-50: R 10-42; D 39-8, 8/5/86, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1174, CQ Vote #248: Motion Agreed To 58-38: R 8-37; D 50-1, 9/17/87, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1174, CQ Vote #259: Motion Agreed To 51-50: R 37-9; D 13-41, With Vice President Bush Casting An ? Yea ? Vote, 9/22/87, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #124: Motion Agreed To 66-29: R 38-6; D 28-23, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #125: Motion Agreed To 50-46: R 38-7; D 12-39, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #126: Motion Rejected 47-50: R 38-6; D 9-44, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #128: Motion Rejected 48-50: R 6-39; D 42-11, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2355, CQ Vote #136: Motion Agreed To 56-37: R 9-34; D 47-3, 5/13/88, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2355, CQ Vote #137: Motion Agreed To 51-43: R 38-5; D 13-38, 5/13/88, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4264, CQ Vote #251: Motion Rejected 35-58: R 35-9; D 0-49, 7/14/88, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4781, CQ Vote #296: Motion Agreed To 50-44: R 5-39; D 45-5, 8/5/88, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1352, CQ Vote #148: Motion Agreed To 50-47: R 37-6; D 13-41, 7/27/89, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #202: Rejected 34-66: R 27-18; D 7-48, 9/26/89, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #213: Adopted 53-47: R 39-6; D 14-41, 9/28/89, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2884, CQ Vote #223: Adopted 54-44: R 2-42; D 52-2, 8/4/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2884, CQ Vote #225: Motion Agreed To 56-41: R 39-4; D 17-37, 8/4/90, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2884, CQ Vote #226: Motion Agreed To 54-43: R 37-6; D 17-37, 8/4/90, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 5803, CQ Vote #319: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4739, CQ Vote #320: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote #168: Rejected 39-60: R 4-39; D 35-21, 7/31/91, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #171: Motion Agreed To 60-38: R 40-3; D 20-35, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote #172: Motion Agreed To 64-34: R 39-4; D 25-30, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote #173: Rejected 46-52: R 5-38; D 41-14, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #207: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 38-5; D 12-44, 9/25/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4990, CQ Vote #108: Adopted 90-9: R 34-9; D 56-0, 5/21/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #182: Motion Rejected 43-49: R 34-5; D 9-44, 8/7/92, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 3114, CQ Vote #214: Rejected 48-50: R 5-38; D 43-12, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #215: Adopted 52-46: R 39-4; D 13-42, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 5504, CQ Vote #228: Adopted 89-4: R 36-4; D 53-0, 9/22/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1298, CQ Vote #251: Adopted 50-48: R 6-36; D 44-12, 9/9/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #64: Rejected 40-59: R 2-42; D 38-17, 3/22/94, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1026, CQ Vote #354: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 47-6; D 4-42, 8/3/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1087, CQ Vote #384: Rejected 45-54: R 5-49; D 40-5, 8/10/95, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1087, CQ Vote #397: Passed 62-35: R 48-4; D 14-31, 9/5/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #399: Passed 64-34: R 50-3; D 14-31, 9/6/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #608: Adopted 51-43: R 47-2; D 4-41, 12/19/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1635, CQ Vote #157: Rejected 53-46: R 52-0; D 1-46, 6/4/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1745, CQ Vote #160: Rejected 44-53: R 4-49; D 40-4, 6/19/96, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1745, CQ Vote #187: Passed 68-31: R 50-2; D 18-29, 7/10/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 936, CQ Vote #171: Rejected 43-56: R 2-53; D 41-3, 7/11/97, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1873, CQ Vote #131: Motion Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41, 5/13/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1873, CQ Vote #262: Motion Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41, 9/9/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2549, CQ Vote #178: Motion Agreed To 52-48: R 52-3; D 0-45, 7/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay)
Kerry Then Claimed To Support Missile Defense. ?I support the development of an effective defense against ballistic missiles that is deployed with maximum transparency and consultation with U.S. allies and other major powers. If there is a real potential of a rogue nation firing missiles at any city in the United States, responsible leadership requires that we make our best, most thoughtful efforts to defend against that threat. The same is true of accidental launch. If it were to happen, no leader could ever explain not having chosen to defend against the disaster when doing so made sense.? (Peace Action Website, ?Where Do The Candidates Stand On Foreign Policy?? http://www.peace-action.org/2004/Kerry.html, Accessed 3/10/04)
Now Kerry Campaign Says He Will Defund Missile Defense. FOX NEWS? MAJOR GARRETT: ?Kerry would not say how much all of this would cost. A top military adviser said the Massachusetts Senator would pay for some of it by stopping all funds to deploy a national ballistic missile defense system, one that Kerry doesn?t believe will work.? KERRY ADVISOR RAND BEERS: ?He would not go forward at this time because there is not a proof of concept.? (Fox News? ?Special Report,? 3/17/03)
Flip-Flopped On 1991 Iraq War Coalition
At The Time, Kerry Questioned Strength Of 1991 Coalition. ?I keep hearing from people, ?Well, the coalition is fragile, it won?t stay together,? and my response to that is, if the coalition is so fragile, then what are the vital interests and what is it that compels us to risk our young American?s lives if the others aren?t willing to stay the ? course of peace? ? I voted against the president, I?m convinced we?re doing this the wrong way ?? (CBS? ?This Morning,? 1/16/91)
Now Kerry Has Nothing But Praise For 1991 Coalition. SEN. JOHN KERRY: ?In my speech on the floor of the Senate I made it clear, you are strongest when you act with other nations. All presidents, historically, his father, George Herbert Walker Bush, did a brilliant job of building a legitimate coalition and even got other people to help pay for the war.? (NBC?s ?Meet The Press,? 1/11/04)
Flip-Flopped On View Of War On Terror
Kerry Said War On Terror Is ?Basically A Manhunt.? ?Kerry was asked about Bush?s weekend appearance on ?Meet the Press? when he called himself a ?war president.? The senator, who watched the session, remarked: ?The war on terrorism is a very different war from the way the president is trying to sell it to us. It?s a serious challenge, and it is a war of sorts, but it is not the kind of war they?re trying to market to America.? Kerry characterized the war on terror as predominantly an intelligence-gathering and law enforcement operation. ?It?s basically a manhunt,? he said. ?You gotta know who they are, where they are, what they?re planning, and you gotta be able to go get ?em before they get us.?? (Katherine M. Skiba, ?Bush, Kerry Turn Focus To Each Other,? Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/13/04)
Two Weeks Later, Kerry Flip-Flopped, Saying War On Terror Is More Than ?A Manhunt?. ?This war isn?t just a manhunt ? a checklist of names from a deck of cards. In it, we do not face just one man or one terrorist group. We face a global jihadist movement of many groups, from different sources, with separate agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe.? (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At University Of California At Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 2/27/04)
Flip-Flopped On Funding For Our Troops In Iraq
Kerry Pledged To Fund Reconstruction With ?Whatever Number? Of Dollars It Took. NBC?S TIM RUSSERT: ?Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?? SEN. JOHN KERRY: ?No. I think we should increase it.? RUSSERT: ?Increase funding?? KERRY: ?Yes.? RUSSERT: ?By how much?? KERRY: ?By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.? (NBC?s ?Meet The Press,? 8/31/03)
Then Kerry Voted Against Senate Passage Of Iraq/Afghanistan Reconstruction Package. ?Passage of the bill that would appropriate $86.5 billion in fiscal 2004 supplemental spending for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would provide $10.3 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraq, including $5.1 billion for security and $5.2 billion for reconstruction costs. It also would provide $10 billion as a loan that would be converted to a grant if 90 percent of all bilateral debt incurred by the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein has been forgiven by other countries. Separate provisions limit reconstruction aid to $18.4 billion. It also would provide approximately $65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance and $1.3 billion for veterans medical care.? (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay)
Kerry Later Claimed: ?I Actually Did Vote For The $87 Billion Before I Voted Against It.? (Glen Johnson, ?Kerry Blasts Bush On Protecting Troops,? The Boston Globe, 3/17/04)
Flip-Flopped On Tapping Strategic Petroleum Reserve
In February 2000, Kerry Said Release Of Oil From Strategic Petroleum Reserve Would Not Be ?Relevant.? ?Without being specific, Kerry, a key member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, suggested the US could retaliate economically in other trade areas. He also said he does not want a release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. A release ?is not relevant. It would take months for the oil to get to the market,? he said.? (Cathy Landry, ?US Energy Chief Warns Of Gasoline Crisis,? Platt?s Oilgram News, 2/17/00)
Now, In March 2004, Kerry Called For Stop In Filling Strategic Petroleum Reserve To Reduce Prices. ?Kerry would pressure oil-producing nations to increase production and temporarily suspend filling the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, according to campaign documents. ... ?The Bush administration has put the SPR fill program on automatic pilot without regard to the short-term effect on the US market,? the campaign documents said. ?The program needs better management ... Kerry would temporarily suspend filling SPR until oil prices return to normal levels.?? (Patricia Wilson, ?Kerry To Offer Plan To Reduce Record Gasoline Prices,? Reuters, 3/29/04)
Flip Flopped On Internet Taxation
In 1998, Kerry Voted To Allow States To Continue Taxing Internet Access After Moratorium Took Effect. Kerry voted against tabling an amendment that would extend the moratorium from two years to three years and allow states that currently impose taxes on Internet access to continue doing so after the moratorium takes effect. (S. 442, CQ Vote #306: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 27-27; D 1-42, 10/7/98, Kerry Voted Nay)
In 2001, Kerry Voted To Extend Internet Tax Moratorium Until 2005 And Allow States To Form Uniform Internet Tax System With Approval Of Congress. (H.R. 1552, CQ Vote #341: Motion Agreed To 57-43: R 35-14; D 22-28; I 0-1, 11/15/01, Kerry Voted Nay)
Kerry Said ?We Do Not Support Any Tax On The Internet Itself.? ?We do not support any tax on the Internet itself. We don?t support access taxes. We don?t support content taxes. We don?t support discriminatory taxes. Many of us would like to see a permanent moratorium on all of those kinds of taxes. At the same time, a lot of us were caught in a place where we thought it important to send the message that we have to get back to the table in order to come to a consensus as to how we equalize the economic playing field in the United States in a way that is fair.? (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/15/01, p. S11902)
The choice is really simple. I am not voting for myself - I am voting for my children - and George W. Bush has the best intrest of my children at hand!!!
Posted by: Earl at September 27, 2004 08:23 AM
Sorry for all the ? in the wrong places - there is a problem with my CPU - It get's very confused with any information concerning John Kerry - Just like the American Public!! - Just remember if you are a Kerry supporter - after November when George W. Bush has won - You can always say you voted for Kerry before you voted against him!!
Posted by: Earl at September 27, 2004 08:59 AM
Earl, it very strange that your postings seem like that of Conservatism... hmmm.....
I am very suprised and delighted that Senator Kerry has taken the South by Storm. The first time since May 04, Kerry is trailing GW JR by one point in Georgia according to the latest Rasmussen poll released Sept 23rd. I am also very happy to see that Louisana, Mississippi, South and North Carolina are for once all within a 10 point margin for Senator Kerry as reported by Rasmussed and American Research Polls. I have fought very hard for the South. This has restored my faith in the Soutern Americans (we are still the best people). Now, if Texas is ever within a 10 point margin, I will pass out. Also GW JR and Cheney are fighting very hard for Nevada. They are now claiming that the Democratic Party has signed up more new voters than the Republicans and are trying to call foul play. This will be the largest Election turnout in American History. No Cheating Allowed.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004 We Can Do It!
Posted by: d. jones at September 27, 2004 11:34 AM
Earl,
Thanks for the post. Of course you can expect all the John Kerry supporters to ignore everything you said and return to the rhetoric. That's the way of these blogs. Nobody wants facts, they just want to believe that George Bush needs to be defeated and they are willing to believe anything to back that up.
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 27, 2004 12:05 PM
The debates are overrated. If there is not memorable "soundbite" for the pundits to digest and split into a thousand hairs, then it will all be a lot smoke and mirrors (does anyone remember anything significant from the 00 debates except for Gore shaking his head?????)
Posted by: Jack at September 27, 2004 12:45 PM
Jones,
Did it occur to you that they sound alike because they've read the facts and are reporting them as they are? Did it occur to you that they might sound alike because when you tell the truth, instead of depending on allegations and suppositions you are going to tell the same story, unlike most of your posts which are riddled with errors. Only the truth remains consistant, lies must be supported by more lies which will eventually contradict, sort of like John Kerry's voting record and the promises he's making to gullible American's who believe him.
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 27, 2004 01:30 PM
EARL
I AM ON YOUR SIDE SOLID, BUT THE BUST I COULD DO WAS COUNT THE NUMBER OF TIME YOU WROTE FLIP FLOP. YOU HAD ME AT SEVEN, HA HA. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. VOTE BUSH KEEP THIS COUNTRY SAFE.
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at September 27, 2004 01:41 PM
Kerry is at it again. Today in Wisconsin he told voters that George Bush has another SECRET PLAN to hurt Dairy Farmers. How does this guy get away with this and why isn't more of the media covering this current aspect of Kerry's scare tactics to become president? Are we supposed to belive that John Kerry is some sort of supernatural force like the John Edwards of Crossing Over fame. He has more insights into the Bush secret plans, telling voters Bush is going to increase the number of active Guards in Iraq, proven flase by Bush policy, Bush is secretly planning to re-instate the draft when it's really a democratic proposal and now the secret plan to hurt Diary Farmers. Get a life Kerry. There are no secret plans that only you know of, stopp trying to scare voters to you because you have no real policy. You've seen what George Bush is doing and you can't truthfully fault the plans so now you tell us he has something sinister up his sleeves that only you know about, something that is different from what he's been doing all along. John Kerry, you're a joke!!!!
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 27, 2004 04:30 PM
d. jones
Are you looking at polls from Mars?
Here are the polls from Georgia: Bush is ahead by 20 points!! It isn't even a battleground or swing state. Why do you invent things?
Presidential Race
Poll | Date Sample MoE Bush Kerry Nader Spread
SUSA | 9/13-9/15 658 RV 3.9 58 38 - Bush +20
ARG | 9/11-9/13 600 LV 4.0 53 42 - Bush +11
Strategic Vision*| 9/11-9/13 801 RV 3.0 58 35 1 Bush +23
Strategic Vision*| 8/27-8/29 801 RV 3.0 55 36 1 Bush +19
Rasmussen | 8/1-8/26 LV 4.0 53 42 - Bush +11
Strategic Vision*| 8/14-8/17 801 RV 3.0 54 38 1 Bush +16
Strategic Vision*| 7/30-8/2 801 RV 3.0 52 41 1 Bush +11
Rasmussen | 7/1-7/31 LV 4.0 53 42 - Bush +11
Rasmussen | 6/1-6/30 LV 4.0 52 41 - Bush +11
Rasmussen | 5/1-31 LV 4.0 51 39 - Bush +12
Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 27, 2004 04:31 PM
Isn't it funny how JM/d.jones has not responded to the same exact posts about me?
I knew you were a fraud and so is Kerry. This November you and Kerry can go back into your hole.
I can't wait for this Thursday for the first debate. Kerry is going down and he is taking all the idiots like you with him.
Posted by: Wayne at September 27, 2004 04:50 PM
I see d. jones is doing a great job getting people to change their vote to Kerry. Bush's numbers keep climbing on this forum.
Thank you d. jones and your "little" friends too! Please keep calling us names, lying and twisting facts.
I will make sure to mention this to Bush so he can send you a thank you note on Nov 3rd.
Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 27, 2004 05:03 PM
Earl - fantastic post! You really did your homework. I appreciate all the time and research that went into it. Unfortunately, the liberals on this site won't pay any attention to facts - as has been proven by d.jones already, he's putting faith in rhetoric and "polls" of "likely" voters, which apparently lead him to believe that Kerry might win some Southern states. Of course, if I were him, I wouldn't hold my breath, if I had an ounce of sense. He could, however, note that New York has been "red" here for over a week. Even though this poll is no more reliable or accurate than any of the others, the fact that it's New York is pretty amazing regardless. Anyway, thanks again Earl! Bush/Cheney '04
Posted by: Stephanie at September 27, 2004 06:27 PM
CALAMITY JANE
I THINK I LOVE YOU. YOU ARE SO RIGHT ON TARGET, I ONLY HAVE ACCESS TO 2 NON-WEB POLLS AND BUSH IS UP BY ATLEAST 4 AND 11. IF YOU HAVE THE AOL POLL THEY HAVE ALL 50 STATES GOING FOR BUSH. NOW I DON'T EXPECT THAT WILL HAPPEN BUT IT'S NICE.
AS FOR SOME PEOPLE HELPPING BY BEING SO NEGITIVE AND NASTY YOUR RIGHT AGAIN. KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK.
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at September 27, 2004 08:49 PM
Calamity Jane,
You are incorrect. There was a poll that showed a difference of 1% point in Georgie, like it or not. Do I believe that Kerry is that close in Georgia? No. But it would be nice! I am eagerly awaiting the debate this week. I hope John Kerry does well. I think that the Presidential election is still a lot closer than you Redumblicans think.
Posted by: JM at September 27, 2004 09:28 PM
JM, I mean d.jones,
Still no response on being the same person, huh?
Posted by: Wayne at September 27, 2004 11:26 PM
JM
I have been watching the polls for quite some time and there is no way that Georgia is that close. Georgia is the state of Zell Miller. Do you honestly think that the people of Georgia would not back the person that one of their Sentors so heartily endorsed and was also their Governor for two terms. I think not.
Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 27, 2004 11:31 PM
Hey d.jones,
It seems either you are JM or you copied JM's remark. Which is it? Are you an idiot with no original thought, or an idiot who posts under two names?
Posted by: Wayne at September 27, 2004 11:32 PM
I thought the Georgia poll was a little to good to be true; however, part of the South remains within Senator Kerry's reach at a time when it never was before. I have always stated that if GW JR EVER had to fight at all for the south, he would lose this election. Calamity, you are a very sick, wicked little Republican. Here are recent poll numbers taken from the Republican polling site. You can stop the fake 10 digit lead. The RNC bounce is over!
Bush 50% - Kerry 45%
Battleground 09/23/04
Bush 49% - Kerry 43%
Time 09/23/04
Bush 45% - Kerry 43%
Fox News 09/22/04
Bush 49% - Kerry 41%
CBS News 09/22/04
Bush 49% - Kerry 49%
Democracy Corps 09/21/04
Posted by: d. jones at September 28, 2004 12:08 AM
Posted by: Stephanie at September 27, 2004 06:27 PM
Stephanie, are you that dumb? Look how long OHIO has been blue on this blog?? So What's your point about New York!
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at September 28, 2004 12:12 AM
I will make sure to mention this to Bush so he can send you a thank you note on Nov 3rd.
Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 27, 2004 05:03 PM
Calamity, I hope you mention something to GW JR on his way to Iraq on November 3rd. "Like, Move your buns over Bushy Jr., I will be tagging along with ya!"
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004 Send Bushy To Iraq, Texas doesn't even want him anymore!
Posted by: d. jones at September 28, 2004 12:16 AM
I think Kerry has a chance of taking Georgia.
It's a known fact that Georgia has many dead people that can be easily registered to vote.
My only prayer is that when I die, I will not be forced to vote Democrat like so many unfortunate souls in Ohio.
It's sad. The democrats want our death tax, and afterwards, our vote.
Posted by: Rick Varnum at September 28, 2004 02:06 AM
Yes, it is true that there is a poll out there on the web that shows Bush is up by only 1 point in Georgia.
See http://rvhosting.com/poll
However, if you examine the page closely, the polling technique is a bit suspect.
Posted by: Rick Varnum at September 28, 2004 02:43 AM
Hmmmm...
John Edwards (of Crossing Over) should be hearing from the Kerry campaign any day now- mourners please omit flowers...
Posted by: Dave at September 28, 2004 02:54 AM
I am so sick of people calling John Kerry a flip-flopper. You people don't realize that these bills and such that he's supposedly flip-flopped on come loaded with extra cr** that they try to get passed, and during the process of refining bills nearly everyone ends up "flip-flopping" at one point or another, that is how legislation is formed. And I'm also growing tired of this game of taking Kerry's statments out of context.
I know that people are waking up but, we need more to listen and understand. We have a serious media problem in this country. Someone can blatantly lie, and it can be proven so... but the media will report it. Then when the facts become clear, and the administration still sticks to the lie (ie Iraq's ties to terrorism/9-11), the media doesn't bother to correct it. Wake up america. Think. Don't let the people with money hold us down and take advantage of us. THEY OWN THE MEDIA, are you blind? Do you not think for yourself? Can you not make your own decisions without being told whats what. Can you make any stance or argument without a pundit telling you the talking points? Do you listen without partisanship to what the candidates are actually talking about? Do you know anything of our nations history? Do you not realize that terrorism is caused by our arrogance? By us taking advatange of slave labor across the world? By supporting oppressive regimes to maintain that cheap labor. By preventing governments from rising up and taking OUR PROFITS away by making things fair?(ie Communism). Wake up america, we've been lied to for too long.
These crooks hate John Kerry, because he has always fought against the corruption... From protesting vietnam to uncovering money laundering. Haven't any of you heard of the Kerry Comission?
Has everyone forgotten whats happened the past 3 1/2 years?
From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: "I think credibility is important.It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations." But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says.
1. Social Security Surplus
BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]
...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]
2. Patient's Right to Sue
GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]
...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]
...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ?would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]
3. Tobacco Buyout
BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]
4. North Korea
BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]
5. Abortion
BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]
...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]
6. OPEC
BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]
...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]
7. Iraq Funding
BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]
...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]
8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony
BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]
...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]
9. Science
BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists?including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents?issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]
10. Ahmed Chalabi
BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]
...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]
11. Department of Homeland Security
BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]
12. Weapons of Mass Destruction
BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]
...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]
13. Free Trade
BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]
14. Osama Bin Laden
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]
...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]
15. The Environment
BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]
...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]
16. WMD Commission
BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]
17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]
18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]
19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony
BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]
...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]
20. Gay Marriage
BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]
21. Nation Building
BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]
22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link
BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]
...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]
23. U.N. Resolution
BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]
...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]
24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict
BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]
25. Campaign Finance
BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]
...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]
26. 527s
Bush opposes restrictions on 527s: "I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising [in McCain Feingold], which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import." [President Bush, 3/27/02]
?Bush says 527s bad for system: "I don't think we ought to have 527s. I can't be more plain about it?I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold." [President Bush, 8/23/04]
27. Medical Records
Bush says medical records must remain private: "I believe that we must protect?the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private." [President Bush, 4/12/01]
?Bush says patients' histories are not confidntial: The Justice Department?asserts that patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential." [BusinessWeek, 4/30/04]
28. Timelines For Dictators
Bush sets timeline for Saddam: "If Iraq does not accept the terms within a week of passage or fails to disclose required information within 30 days, the resolution authorizes 'all necessary means' to force compliance--in other words, a military attack." [LA Times, 10/3/02]
?Bush says he's against timelines: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators." [President Bush, 8/27/04]
29. The Great Lakes
Bush wants to divert great lakes: "Even though experts say 'diverting any water from the Great Lakes region sets a bad precedent' Bush 'said he wants to talk to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chré´©en about piping water to parched states in the west and southwest.'? [AP, 7/19/01]
Bush says he'll never divert Great Lakes: "We've got to use our resources wisely, like water. It starts with keeping the Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes Basin...My position is clear: We're never going to allow diversion of Great Lakes water." [President Bush, 8/16/04]
30. Winning The War On Terror
Bush claims he can win the war on terror: "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can." [President Bush, 4/13/04]
?Bush says war on terror is unwinnable: "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/30/04]
?Bush says he will win the war on terror: "Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/31/04]
WAKE UP AMERICA! THE WORLD WANTS JOHN KERRY. THEY WILL HELP US STABILIZE IRAQ. GEORGE BUSH HAS PUSHED EVERYONE AWAY AND MADE THEM ANGRY. WITH JOHN KERRY WE CAN HAVE A REAL SHOT AT HELPING THE IRAQI PEOPLE AND OUR OWN COUNTRY.
John Kerry has been consistant. Some might call his positions nuanced. It means hes really smart and thinks of all the different aspects of it. The media loves to take him out of context, but thats all it is. Most of the media is lying to you for their own gain. Its a sad day in america when so many people still don't see through it. Check out these debates everybody. See what John Kerry has to say WITHOUT THE MEDIA FILTER. You will be amazed.
Peace, Love, and Kerry/Edwards 2004!
Posted by: Peace + Love at September 28, 2004 03:28 AM
And lets not forget that even when Bush's position stays the same, his reasons flip. The most famous examples involve taxes and Iraq. He supported tax cuts in 2000 because he said they were affordable in a time of large government surpluses, and once in power he supported them amid rising deficits because he said the economy needed stimulation. The president's principal rationale for the Iraq invasion was to end Baghdad's suspected mass-weapons program and links to international terrorism. In the absence of compelling evidence of these, the main post-invasion rationale has been to rescue Iraq from a tyrant and support democracy in the greater Middle East.
and if you've actually been paying attention thes epast 3 1/2 years, I'm sure you can name many more.
And what about the constant lying?
BUSH’S PATTERN OF HIDING THE TRUTH
The administration's fabrication's and attempts to bury the truth are not limited to its zealous pursuit of war with Iraq. Below is just a sample of recent items the administration has tried to conceal from the American people:
§ HIDING THE TOLL OF THE IRAQ WAR. The The Bush administration has (i) banned the media from Dover Air Force Base where the bodies of troops killed in Iraq are returned, (ii) under-reported figures for those officially wounded to only include those directly wounded in combat, and (iii) restricted access to military hospitals for professionally trained counselors of the Disabled American Veterans Association – access that the DAV has had for more than 60 years – to only permit closely monitored visits with pre-selected patients; and (iv) failed to attend a single funeral for an Iraq war veteran. (Tom Paine.common sense 03.08.04)
§ SUPPRESSING PRESCRIPTION DRUG COST DATA BEFORE CONGRESSIONAL VOTE: The White House provided Congress with a cost estimate for the Medicare prescription drug plan of $400 billion even though it knew at that time the costs of were $551 billion - more than 25% higher. The administration threatened to fire Medicare's top financial analyst (Richard Foster) if he released the information. Two months after the President signed the law, the administration increased its costs estimates to $524 billion. AARP, which worked with the administration in drafting the bill, revealed that these higher estimates were "well known in the fall" but is only now being made public. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based budget watchdog group claim Congress got "suckered by a classic financial bait-and-switch by the administration."
In May, the Congressional Research Service issued a report that the Bush administration violated federal law by ordering Mr. Foster to withhold information from Congress. The report stressed that “the right to receive truthful information from federal agencies to assist in its legislative functions is clear and unassailable.” (Kemper & Simon - Los Angeles Times 01.31.04, Pugh- Knight Ridder Los Angeles Times 03.11.04, Kemper - Los Angeles Times 03.14.04, Progress Report 03.15.04, Pear – New York Times 05.04.04)
§ SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE OF MERCURY POISONING: Administration officials “suppressed and sought to manipulate government information on mercury contained in an EPA report on children’s health and the environment.” The report, which found that 8 percent of women between the ages of 16-49 have mercury levels in their blood that could impair their children, was buried by the White House for nine months and was only released after it was leaked to the media by EPA.
In addition, in issuing regulations on mercury emissions, the administration told EPA staffers “not to undertake the normal scientific and economic studies called for under a standing executive order” to prevent production of evidence that would undermine its weakening of mercury emissions regulation. (Union of Concerned Scientists – Scientific Integrity in Policy Making February 2004, Krugman – New York Times 04.06.04).
§ CENSORED AND DELAYED 9-11 REPORT: The Bush administration purposefully delayed the release of the report of the Joint Congressional Committee on 9-11 until after the conclusion of the Iraq war to hide facts such as the absence of an Iraq0AlQaeda link. Once released, the administration censored portions of the report that demonstrated that Bush was briefed on August 6, 2001 about Al Qaeda plans for a possible hijacking in the US and the Saudi role in funding Al Qaeda. (Waterman - UPI 07.23.03, Priest - Washington Post (07.25.03).
§ SUPPRESSING, ALTERING OR MANIPULATING EMPERICAL DATA UNDERMINING THEIR IDEOLOGICAL POSITIONS: More than 4,000 scientists – including 48 Nobel Prize winners and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences – have accused the Bush administration of distorting and suppressing science to suit its political goals. (Shogren – Los Angeles Times 07.09.04)
A report by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that this administration has:
a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific finding by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety and community well being. Incidents involve air pollutants, heat-trapping emissions, reproductive health, drug resistant bacteria, endangered species, forest health, and military intelligence
The report also found that:
there is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented.
READ THE REPORT! http://www.ucsusa.org/documents/RSI_final_fullreport.pdf
A report by the House Committee on Government Reform – Minority Staff reaches the same conclusion, revealing examples such as the administration:
Changing education performance measures to make “abstinence-only” programs appear effect; deleting information on the efficacy and use of condoms from the Center for Disease Control web site; withholding findings on global warming and other negative impacts on wetlands and preventing any analyses on alterative environmental proposals;
1. using misleading data to suggest that a functioning missile defense system could be deployed quickly;
2. including information on the National Cancer Institute’s web site suggesting conflicting evidence on whether abortion leads to breast cancer when the scientific community has determined no such link exists; and
3. preventing research on agricultural practices having a “negative health [or] environmental consequences.
READ THE REPORT! http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/pdfs/pdf_politics_and_science_rep.pdf
§ ERASING EVIDENCE OF RACIAL DISPARITIES IN REPORT ON ACCESS TO QUALITY HEALTH CARE: After a National Academy Sciences panel conducted a Congressionally mandated comprehensive study on racial disparities in access to quality health care and concluded that racial and socioeconomic disparities were “pervasive in our health care system”; that minorities received poorer care and were more likely to die from avoidable deaths (e.g., cancer, cardiac illness) – HHS Secretary Thompson refused to approve the findings and ordered that the report be rewritten. The report released by HHS in December 2003 omitted all findings of racial disparities and instead asserted that claims of minority groups receiving worse care than whites were unproved. (Bloche – Los Angeles Times 02.15.04)
§ REMOVING INFORMATION ON PRIVATE SCHOOL TUITION: Under the No Child Left Behind Act Administration, if a school is deemed a failing school for three years in a row, students would get vouchers to go to a new school based on their share of federal funding (approximately $2,400 per child). The Department of Education website used to list the private school tuition ($28,500) on its website, but the Bush administration has removed this to hide the disparity between the cost of private school and vouchers offered. (Carville – Had Enough?)
§ KILLED TREASURY DEFICIT STUDY: The administration “deep-sixed” a 2003 Treasury Department study that projected that “the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 percent across-the-board income tax increase” would be required to eliminate a projected $44.2 trillion budget deficit due to Bush’s tax cuts. The study found that the future health care and retirement costs of the baby boomers would overwhelm the treasury. “Sharp tax increases and massive spending cuts are unavoidable if the U.S. is to meet benefit promises to future generations.” The report added that the current financial challenge facing Washington is approximately “10 times the publicly held national debt, four years of U.S. economic output, or more than 94 percent of all U.S. household assets.” (Hollings – Washington Post 06.19.03, Baker – Slate 07.11.03, Ferdinand - Utne Reader 05.2003, Malveaux & McCaughan - CNN.com 05.29.03)
§ SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE OF RACIAL HARASSMENT WITHIN THE ASHCROFT JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: For over a year, the Justice Department has delayed the release of a KPMG Consulting report on diversity in DOJ. All that DOJ would release is a redacted version that deletes more than half the report including its summary. It is reported that the redacted portions include findings that DOJ faces “significant diversity issues” and that “minorities are significantly more likely than whites to cite stereotyping, harassment, and racial tensions as characteristics of the work climate.” (New York Times 11.04.03)
§ DELETED FORECAST OF TAX PLAN AS “JOB KILLER”: A Council of Economic Advisors’ forecast showing that the Bush “stimulus” plan would only create 170,000 jobs per year and would be a “job killer” after 2007 was removed from its website. (Baker – Slate 07.11.03)
§ DELETED FINDINGS OF GLOBAL WARMING: Prior to release of the EPA’s 2003 Environmental Overview, the White deleted a detailed chapter of global warming that found that global warming was due to human factors and that “climate changes has global consequences for human health and the environment”. (CBS News.com 06.19.03)
§ CONCEALED "CLEAR SKIES" ANALYSIS: An EPA assessment of Bush’s “Clear Skies” plan concealed the fact that a proposal by Senator Carper (D-Del.) would provide greater long term benefits at only slightly higher costs. In June 2004, a research firm hired by the Bush administration concluded that current policies on power plant emissions lead to the death of 24,000 people each year. While the Clear Skies program would reduce this by as many as 14,000 lives, competing proposals would save up to 22,000 lives. (Gugliotta & Pianin – Washington Post 07.02.03, Janofsky – New York Times 06.10.04)
§ KILLED LAYOFF REPORTS: The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ monthly Mass Layoff Statistics report was killed by the administration in December 2002 and only noted in a footnote in the final report. (President Bush I did the same thing to hide his dismal performance.) After this was discovered by the Washington Post, the reports were reinstated. (Baker – Slate 07.11.03)
§ DELETED DECLINING MIN. WAGE: A Labor Department report showing the real value of the minimum wage over time (which would show the workers losing ground under Bush since there has been no increase since 1997) was removed from its website. (Baker – Slate 07.11.03)
§ FORCED SCIENTISTS TO ALTER FINDINGS ON KLAMATH RIVER WATER LEVELS: Karl Rove and Interior Secretary Norton forced National Marine Fisheries scientists to alter findings on the amount of water required for the survival of salmon in Oregon’s Klamath River to enable farms to use a bigger share of the river water. “As a result, more than 33,000 Chinook and Coho salmon died – the largest fish kill in American history.” (Kennedy – Rolling Stone 12.11.03)
§ RESTRICTING DEMOCRATS ABILITY TO QUESTION ADMINISTRATION: In an unprecedented move, the administration is requiring Democrats to submit all requests for information to Republican chairman of the relevant committee, thereby requiring Republican approval of any such requests. (Milbank – Washington Post 11.08.03)
§ HIDING BAD NEWS: The Bush administration moved up the release of census data showing increases in poverty and the uninsured for the third year in a row from September to August while Congress was in recess and many reporters and other Americans were on vacation. The administration has a history of releasing bad news late on Friday to minimize press coverage. (The Daily-Mis-Lead 08.26.04).
MIS-LEADER SPECIAL REPORT: HIDING THE TRUTH: BUSH'S NEED TO KNOW DEMOCRACY http://www.misleader.com/pdf/specialreport2_secrecy.pdf
BUSH LIES FROM A - Z
ABORTION
LIE: Bush justified re-imposing the Reagan era gag order prohibiting funding to overseas family planning groups that provide abortion services or counseling on the grounds that “taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions”.
FACT: The US funds that Bush cut off were only used for non-abortion activities. (David Corn 02.05.01)
LIE: Bush withheld $34 million approved by Congress for the United Nations Population Fund Agency (UNPFA) claiming that the program supported China’s one-child policy.
FACT: Bush’s own State Department conducted an investigation and found “no evidence that UNFPA has supported or participated in the management of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization” in China. Bush suppressed the report and withheld the funds anyway. Bush continues to withhold these funds despite no evidence of claimed forced abortions in China. (NOW Report – The Truth About George, Richter – Los Angeles Times 07.17.04)
LIE: During the debates, Bush claimed he would not seek to overturn the FDA’s approval of RU-486.
FACT: Bush stated he would not accept the FDA’s decision and would seek to appoint an FDA commissioner who would “make sure the FDA considered the risk”. (ABC News.com 10.4.02)
BUSH’S MILITARY RECORD
The media all but ignored this story in 2000 despite available records. When compared to the intense coverage of Clinton’s draft history in 1992 there were 14 stories about Clinton’s draft history for every 1 story about Bush’s. Among the TV networks the total number of stories on Bush’s National Guard “service” was: 1. (Waldman – The American Prospect 01.26.04)
In addition, in 1997 Bush deployed his gubernatorial staff to remove embarrassing details from his military records. Lt. Col Bill Burkett complained about the incident at the time and later sent a letter to the Texas State Senate that Bush’s aides improperly tampered with the file. (Daily Mis-Lead 02.12.04)
LIE: Bush promised that he would “absolutely” release all records pertaining to his military service.
FACT: The White House only released partial documentation and has refused to comply with the Associated Press’ Freedom on Information Act request for the remaining record, forcing AP to file a FOIA lawsuit. (Daily Mis-Lead 07.21.04)
LIE: After being transferred from the Texas Air National Guard “I was in [Alabama] on temporary assignment and fulfilled my weekends at one period of time.”
FACT: Bush moved to Alabama even before requesting a transfer (his initial request was denied). Once approved, Bush never showed up at the Alabama Air National Guard, despite orders to report on specific days. In fact, there are no records that he ever showed up in Alabama for duty. Bush failed to take his annual physical and was removed from flying status in August 1972 and failed to report to duty in Alabama in November 1972 as required.
Two members of Bush’s Alabama unit indicated that were told to expect Bush, were on the lookout for him but he never showed up. Recently released computerized records provide no record of Bush’s whereabouts between July 1972 and September 1972.
(Waldman – The American Prospect 01.26.04; Democrats.com, Levin & Noah – Slate 02.11.04, Center for American Progress 02.12.04, Baker – Memphis Flyer 02.14.04, Daily Mis-Lead 07.27.04)
LIE: Bush returned to Houston after his temporary Alabama assignment and performed Guard duty at Ellington Air Force Base.
FACT: National Guard records indicate Bush had “not been observed” at the Houston base and the unit’s administrative officer has no recall of Bush returning and believed he was still in Alabama. The guard was unable to conduct his yearly evaluation because “Lt. Bush has not been observed during the period of this report.”
Lawrence Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan, reviewed Bush’s payroll records and concluded he had been AWOL. This is supported by the fact that sometime between September 1973 and early 1974, the U.S. Air Force attempted to discharged Bush for failing being AWOL. (Waldman – The American Prospect 01.26.04; Democrats.com, Byrne – The Blue Lemur 08.01.04 and 08.03.04)
LIE: Bush applied to Harvard Business School in 1972 since “I was almost finished with my commitment in the Air National Guard and was no longer flying because the F-102 jet I has [sic] trained in was being replaced by a different fighter.”
FACT: Bush’s commitment was through May 1974 and his unit continued to fly F-102s through 1974. (Democrats.com)
LIE: Bush claimed that his Guard duty was not an attempt to avoid service in Vietnam since he volunteered for a program that rotated Guard pilots to Vietnam but he never was called.
FACT: Bush’s application included a box to be checked specifying whether he did or not want to volunteer for overseas duty. Bush checked the “no” box. (Democrats.com) In addition, despite scoring 25 out of a possible 100, Bush qualified for the single available pilot spot due to pressure from his father who was then in Congress. (GregPalast.com). See documentation in DOJ files detailing how strings were pulled for W. http://www.gregpalast.com/ulf/documents/draftdodgeblanked.jpg
For More Information go to: http:// www.awolbush.com
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
LIE: After initially opposing McCain-Feingold, Bush jumped on the bandwagon once it was a fait accompli. In July 2002, he cut a deal with Senator McCain to appoint a pro-reform candidate (Ellen Weintraub) backed by McCain to the Federal Election Commission.
FACT: As Senator McCain plainly stated, while “the administration wanted to share in the widespread public approval of campaign finance reform by . . . signing the legislation . . . he’s cooperating behind the scenes with opponents of the law in Congress and on the [Federal Election] Commission to weaken it as much as possible.” Bush sat on the Weintraub nomination until the Bush FEC issued regulations creating huge loopholes contrary to the express language of the law to permit (i) party committees to raise soft money through independent committees, (ii) federal officials to engage in fundraising, and (iii) permitting candidates to raise soft money through independent committees. In the words of Senator McCain, “[t]hey flat-out broke their word.” (Arianna Online 12.09.02, Public Citizen Analysis of How FEC Is Undermining the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002)
CIVIL RIGHTS & PATRIOT ACT
LIE: The Bush administration repeatedly argued that it could not release the names of detainees – even those who had not been charged or accused of terrorism – because doing so would harm national security.” The Justice Department in a sworn affidavit contended that when detainees are publicly identified “terrorist organizations with whom they have a connection may refuse to deal further with them.”
FACT: That rule does not apply when the administration needs to make disclosures for political purposes. When forced to come up some justification for its elevation of the threat level immediately after the Democratic convention based on information that was three years old, National Security Advisor Rice stated that the alert was due to the capture of Al Qaeda operative Mohammed Khan. The Justice Department’s affidavit was correct; however, since Rice’s disclosure of Khan harmed ongoing investigations. Once again, politics triumphs over security in the Bush White House. (Daily Mis-Lead 08.08.04)
LIE: "By the way, the reason I bring up the Patriot Act, it's set to expire next year. I'm starting a campaign to make it clear to members of Congress that it shouldn't expire. It shouldn't expire for the security of our country." President Bush.
FACT: Less that 10 percent of the Patriot Act expires; most of the law is permanent and those portions that do sunset will not do so until December 31, 2005. (Cassel – Counterpunch 04.26.04)
LIE: "And that changed, the law changed on- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see?"
FACT: Roving wiretaps were available prior to 9/11 against drug lords and terrorists. Prior to the law, the FBI could get a roving wiretap against both when it had probable cause of crime for a wiretap eligible offense. What the Patriot Act did is make roving wiretaps available in intelligence investigations supervised by the secret intelligence court without the judicial safeguards of the criminal wiretap statute. (Cassel – Counterpunch 04.26.04)
LIE: "... see, I'm not a lawyer, so it's kind of hard for me to kind of get bogged down in the law. I'm not going to play like one, either. (Laughter.) The way I viewed it, if I can just put it in simple terms, is that one part of the FBI couldn't tell the other part of the FBI vital information because of the law. And the CIA and the FBI couldn't talk."
FACT: The CIA and the FBI could talk and did. As Janet Reno wrote in prepared testimony before the 9/11 commission, "There are simply no walls or restrictions on sharing the vast majority of counterterrorism information. There are no legal restrictions at all on the ability of the members of the intelligence community to share intelligence information with each other.
"With respect to sharing between intelligence investigators and criminal investigators, information learned as a result of a physical surveillance or from a confidential informant can be legally shared without restriction. While there were restrictions placed on information gathered by criminal investigators as a result of grand jury investigations or Title III wire taps, in practice they did not prove to be a serious impediment since there was very little significant information that could not be shared." (Cassel – Counterpunch 04.26.04)
LIE: "Thirdly, to give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed-notification search warrants. ... We couldn't use these against terrorists [before the Patriot Act], but we could use against gangs."
FACT: Delayed-notification - or so-called sneak-and-peek search warrants - were never limited to gangs. The circuit courts that had authorized them in limited circumstances prior to the Patriot Act did not limit the warrants to the investigation of gangs. In fact, terrorism or espionage investigators did not necessarily have to go through the criminal courts for a covert search - they could do so with even fewer safeguards against abuse by going to a top secret foreign intelligence court in Washington.
For criminal sneak-and-peek warrants, the Patriot Act added a catch-all argument for prosecutors - if notice would delay prosecution or jeopardize an investigation - which makes these secret search warrants much easier to obtain. The president's sneak-and-peek misstatement clearly demonstrates that the Patriot Act is not limited to terrorism. In fact, many of the law's expanded authorities can clearly be used outside the war on terrorism. (Cassel – Counterpunch 04.26.04)
LIE: In announcing his support for the Defense of Marriage Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage, Bush said he was reversing his previous position because of the actions in Massachusetts, New Mexico and San Francisco.
FACT: President Bush told the amendment sponsor, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave that he would support the amendment several months prior – before any state actions. (Daily Mis-Lead 03.02.04)
LIE: When asked by David Frost about the demonstrators protesting his visit to the UK, Bush responded that “Freedom is a beautiful thing, I would first say, and aren’t you lucky to be in a country that encourages people to speak their mind. And I value going to a country where people are free to say anything they want to say”.
FACT: Under Bush, the FBI has been monitoring political demonstrations and other legal activities such as using the Internet for fundraising for the first time since the Nixon-Hoover era. In addition, after 9-11 then White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said that Americans “need to watch what they say, watch what they do.” Similarly, Attorney General Ashcroft labeled any criticism of the Patriot Act as aiding terrorists. (Daily Mis-Lead 11.24.03)
LIE: Attorney General Ashcroft told there “is no evidence of racial bias in the administration of the federal death penalty”.
FACT: A September 2000 Justice Department report concluded there was racial bias in the administration of the federal death penalty. (People For the
American Way
– Report on Attorney General Ashcroft’s First Year)
CLINTON BASHING
LIE: At the 2000 Republican National Convention, Bush claimed that if ‘called on by the commander in chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, ‘Not ready for duty, sir.’”
FACT: This claim was contradicted by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Secretary Cohen and Bush’s own foreign policy advisor Richard Armitage. (Franken – Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them)
LIE: The Bush administration spread stories that the outgoing Clinton administration vandalized the White House with obscene graffiti, file cabinets glued shut, phone wires cut and pornography left on fax machines.
FACT: The General Accounting Office found no evidence of vandalism, wires slashed, equipment damaged or other evidence to match the allegations. (Boston Globe 05.28.01)
LIE: The Bush administration claimed that regulations issued during the final weeks of the Clinton administration were “ill-considered” and “ill-intentioned”.
FACT: Virtually all regulations issued during the final weeks of the Clinton administration had been developed over a period of years and are consistent with practices of prior administrations. (Washington Post 06.09.01).
DEFENSE & VETERANS AFFAIRS
LIE: Bush has lauded the “great courage” of those serving in Iraq and has proclaimed that “[o]ur men and women in uniform give America their best and we owe them our support.”
FACT: Bush’s support has been in words only, as he has requested major cuts in the Impact Aid program providing funds for the schooling of 900,000 children of military families. (The Daily Mis-Lead 10.13.03)
In addition, one million children living in military and veteran families are denied child tax credit help in the President’s tax cut, including 260,000 of children with parents in active duty. (Center for American Progress 12.13.03)
LIE: Bush told the VFW that “Veterans are a priority of this administration . . . and that priority is reflected in my budget.”
FACT: In 2003, Bush killed an emergency funding request that included $275 million for Veterans’ medical care, while his 2004 budget requests falls $1.9 billion short of maintaining what the American Legion called “an inadequate status quo.” Bush’s FY2005 budget cuts funding by $13.5 billion over 5 years. (The Daily Mis-Lead 10.21.03, The Center for American Progress 02.04.03)
LIE: In June 2001 Bush stated that the US would not deploy a missile defense system “that doesn’t work.”
FACT: Bush then proceeded to deploy the missile defense system even though a General Accounting Office report found only “limited data for determining whether the system will work as intended.” (Corn – The Nation 10.13.03)
EDUCATION
LIE: On a three-stated education tour, Bush claimed they the administration has seriously increased funding for education, saying “we’re doing our duty; we understand that people need extra help, and the federal government is responding.”
FACT: There is a $72 billion gap between what Bush promised to spend and what he actually sought. Of the states visited, he promised $176MM for Arkansas for disadvantaged children, but only sought $117MM. Bush is seeking to reduce funding for almost one-third of Arkansas school districts. In Maryland, Bush is only seeking $171MM after promising $264MM and in West Virginia he is seeking $106MM after promising $163MM. (The Daily Mis-Lead 05.12.04)
LIE: In signing the No Child Left Behind Act, Bush declared “We’re going to spend more on our schools and we’re going to spend it more wisely.” In his 2004 State of the Union speech, he claimed “I refuse to give up on any child and the No Child Left Behind Act is opening the door of opportunity to all of America’s children.”
FACT: Bush’s FY2005 budget under-funds the No Child Left Behind (“NCLB”) program by $9.4 billion – or 27 percent less than authorized by Congress. Bush has under funded the NCLB program by $15 billion over his first three years. Most of the under funding is in the area of Title I of the Act which provided funds to schools with low income or disadvantaged students. (The Daily Distortion 10.24.03, New Democratic Network 12.02.03, Center for American Progress 02.03.04)
LIE: “I propose larger Pell Grants for students who prepare for college with demanding courses in high school.” (2004 SOU)
FACT: The Bush administration has eliminated 84,000 students from the Pell Grants program and reduced grants to another 1.5 million students. Its FY2005 budget freezes Pell Grant awards. (Center for American Progress 02.03.04)
LIE: “I’ve always felt that the community college system provides a great opportunity for job training. . . . So we’ve got the money in our budget to help invigorate the community college system.”
FACT: The Bush administration has proposed modest increases in job training funds for community colleges but this is offset by over $1 billion cut out of job training programs over the last three years. (Center for American Progress 02.23.04)
LIE: In a September 2003 speech, Bush claimed that his budget boosted spending for elementary and secondary education to $53.1 billion -- a 26 percent increase.
FACT: Bush’s budget for elementary and secondary education is only $34.9 billion (his entire education budget is $53.1 billion) and the boost he refers to is actually a $900 million cut. (Corn – The Nation 09.15.03)
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
CLEAN AIR
LIE: The Bush administration claims it has imposed “stringent new rules on power plant emissions”.
FACT: The new Bush rules gutted Clean Air Act restrictions to allow utilities to avoid having to install expensive new anti-pollution equipment when they modernize their plants. The EPA’s civil enforcement chief resigned in protest, while another senior EPA lawyer wrote to Christie Whitman that the administration “seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce. A study commissioned by the administration demonstrated that current policies on power plant emissions led to the death of 24,000 people each year. (Center for American Progress 12.13.03, New York Times 06.10.04)
LIE: The Bush administration claimed its new air pollution standards for plywood manufacturers, which are about “10,000 times less stringent than the level previously used by EPA”, were consistent with public health needs and available science.
FACT: In issuing the new rules, the administration relied on studies prepared by the chemical industry and ignored by the National Cancer Institute and National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health that showed exposure to formaldehyde used in manufacturing plywood caused leukemia in humans. (Miller & Hamburger – Los Angeles Times 05.21.04)
LIE: On her final day as EPA administrator, Christine Todd Whitman assured members of Congress that EPA would do required economic and technical studies before proposing a rule to reduce mercury emissions from power plants. After her departure she denied any knowledge that the analysis was not being conducted.
FACT: Whitman had knowledge that EPA was not doing the required analysis, as her assurances came in letter to lawmakers concerned about reports that the studies had been tabled by the White House. When the pro-industry rule weakening Clean Air Act requirements for mercury emissions came out, it was discovered that the analyses was not done and, instead, EPA only studied options that would support the White House’s desired outcome. (Miller & Hamburger – Los Angeles Times 03.19.04)
LIE: The administration claims that it has offered stringent new rules that will result in dramatic reductions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury.
FACT: The administration’s new rules weaken Clean Air Act requirements for mercury emissions by requiring that plants reduce such emissions by only 1/3 of what is required by the Clean Air Act – reducing current emissions from 48 tons to 34 tons by 2010 instead of a reduction to 5 tons by year 2007. The rules also will result in 1.4 million tons more of air pollution. (Daily Mis-Lead 12.05.03, Center for American Progress 12.13.03)
LIE: In 2002, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Air Quality Holmstead told two Senate committees that the proposed rule changes gutting the Clean Air will not “have a negative impact on enforcement cases.” In response to questioning as to whether discussed the impact of the proposed rule changes with EPA and Justice Department enforcement officials, he replied, “Yes, that was one of the primary issues that was discussed. What I can say is, based on numerous meetings that I have had, which included staff attorneys from [the Justice Department’s environmental division) as well as attorneys from our enforcement office, is we do not believe these changes will have a negative impact on the enforcement cases.”
FACT: At that time, EPA enforcement agents repeatedly told Holmstead and others that the proposed rule changes would inevitably undermine ongoing clean air enforcement cases, possibly by prompting courts to accept a more lenient standard. EPA’s former chief of enforcement stated that the new rules “substantially complicate current litigation and act as a disincentive for companies to settle.” A General Accounting Report also concluded that the policy will hinder current enforcement actions (Pianin – Washington Post 10.10.03, Shogren – Los Angeles Times 10.24.03)
LIE: In promoting his New Source Review rule, which rewrites the Clean Air Act to permit older power plants to upgrade without installing pollution control devices, President Bush stood outside Detroit Edison Monroe Power Plant claiming that existing EPA rules were too complicated to permit the plant to implement upgrades quickly.
FACT: The Edison Monroe plant, which is the 8th largest emitter of sulfur dioxide in the US, had received the go-ahead from the EPA to proceed so long as it adhered to its stated intention of not increasing emissions as a result of the project. Under the new Bush rule, Edison Monroe can increase its emissions by 30,000 tons per year or 56 percent. (The Daily Mis-Lead 09.17.03)
LIE: A 2003 EPA ad campaign targeted at Hispanics claimed the administrations “Clear Skies” initiative would “create purer air, better health and a more brilliant future for the United States.”
FACT: The Bush initiative would allow power plants to discharge additional levels of sulfur dioxide, mercury and nitrogen then currently permitted under the Clean Air Act. Sulfur dioxide and other pollutants are associated with diseases such as emphysema and asthma that disproportionately afflict minority populations (The Daily Mis-Lead 10.20.03)
LIE: In August 2003, the EPA denied a petition from environmental groups asking the agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions from new vehicles, claiming that EPA lacked the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
FACT: The claim that EPA lacks this authority is contradicted by case law and the opinion of two prior EPA general counsels. (Zitner, Polakovic and Shogren – Los Angeles Times 08.29.03, Lee – New York Times 08.29.03)
LIE: During the 2000 campaign, Bush pledged to impose mandatory emission reductions for carbon dioxide.
FACT: Bush abandoned this pledge once elected. (CNN 03.13.01, Washington Post 03.25.02)
CLEAN WATER & MARINE LIFE
LIE: Bush claimed he is working to “restore, improve and protect at least 3 million wetland acres over the next five years.”
FACT: A study revealed that the Bush administration has “allowed developers to drain thousands of acres of wetlands” under new EPA rules. (Daily Mis-Lead 08.12.04)
LIE: In 2002, the administration claimed that 94 percent of Americans were served by drinking water that met EPA standards, exceeding the EPA’s performance standard of 91 percent.
FACT: The EPA failed to meet its performance standard, since its data failed to include 35 percent of known health standards violations. Instead, it is estimated that only 81 percent of Americans have safe drinking water under Bush in part because inspections have been cut by 50 percent. In contrast, the Clinton administration met the EPA performance standard. (Greenwatch Today 03.22.04)
LIE: In 2001, Bush reversed a Clinton administration regulation reducing the arsenic levels in drinking levels from 50 ppb to 10 ppb claiming that the regulation was a last minute decision, with EPA administrator Todd-Whitman claiming the 10 ppb standard was not based on “the best available science.”
FACT: The new EPA standard was the result of a decade of work. After the Bush administration reversed the 10 ppb, the National Academy of Sciences found that the 10 ppb standard was not only scientifically justified but that the standard could be less than 10 ppb. Under pressure, the Bush administration reinstated the 10 ppb standard even though the “best available science” suggested a lower standard was warranted. (Corn – The Nation 10.13.03)
LIE: President Bush stood before a Snake River dam and claimed credit for an increase in salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest.
FACT: Experts stated that he increased salmon was due to weather and tidal patterns in the Pacific Ocean. The increase happened in spite of the Bush administration which has fallen short of court mandated targets to improve salmon habitats and water quality. Wild salmon are still below the levels necessary to ensure their long term survival. In the summer of 2003, the water levels for the Snake and Columbia River violated the targets 93% and 100% of the days, while also violating the Clean Water Act temperature standards 77.5% and 77.4%. (American Rivers 2003 Salmon Migration Report Card 10.03.03, New York Times 10.14.03, Geranios – AP 10.16.03, New York Times.)
GLOBAL WARMING
LIE: President Bush claimed there is insufficient scientific evidence of global warming as part of his justification for withdrawing from the Kyoto Treaty.
FACT: The National Academy of Science’s 2001 report stated that there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years” and that most of the warming “observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” Similarly, an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that global temperatures were rising dramatically and this was due in part to human-induced emissions.
Most recently, a Pentagon study stated the threat posed by global warming “vastly eclipses that of terrorism.” The study said that climate change should be considered immediately as a top political and military issue and warned catastrophic results between 2007 and 2020. (Revkin – New York Times 01.12.03, Corn – The Nation 10.13.03; Al Jazeera 02.22.04 )
ENERGY CONSERVATION & ELECTRIC POWER
LIE: Bush promised to fund research on hydrogen-powered cars so that we will be “less dependent on foreign sources of energy” and “improve the environment.”
FACT: The Bush administration has “been working quietly to ensure that the system used to produce hydrogen will be fossil fuel dependent – and as potential dirty – as the one that fuels today’s SUV’s.” Up to 90% of all hydrogen will come from oil, nature gas and other fossil fuels. Bush also is paying for this program by stripping funding for programs that help automakers develop high-mileage cars and other energy conservation programs. (Daily Mis-Lead 04.28.04)
LIE: As a candidate, Bush criticized the Clinton administration for not making a greater investment in the nation’s electricity grids and promised he would seek modernization of the grids.
FACT: While the Bush White House initially called for steps to modernize the electricity grids, it did nothing to implement them. Even worse, it allowed House Republicans to defeat Democratic efforts to spend $350 million on grid modernization and played an active role in derailing $2 billion in low-interest loans for expanding transmission capacity in the Pacific Northwest. (American Politics Journal 08.16.03; Allen – Washington Post 08.23.03, The Daily Mis-Lead 10.15.03)
LIE: Bush claimed that conservation would be part of his national energy policy.
FACT: The White House spokesman indicates “that’s a big ‘no.’ The President believes that [unrestrained energy use] is an American way of life.” (ABC 05.07.01)
FOREST & NATIONAL PARKS
LIE: The Bush administration claims that its Healthy Forest Initiatives will “improve forest health and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires while upholding environmental laws [and] restoring our nation’s forest”.
FACT: Congressional Research Service reported that the initiative may increase the risk of fire since “[t]imber harvesting removes the relatively large diameter wood that can be converted into wood product but leaves behind the small material, especially twigs and needles” that contributes to such fires. The impetus behind the bill was not to prevent fires, but because the timber industry wanted to “increase commercial logging with less environmental oversight.” (Center for American Progress 12.13.03)
LIE: Bush campaigned that he would expand the “aims of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act [and] ask Congress to provide $100 million to support the exchange of debt relief for protection of tropical forests.”
FACT: Bush has provided no new funding for the program. (Boston Globe 04.10.01)
DRILLING & MINING
LIE: Secretary Norton told Congress that drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge would not harm the region’s caribou population. She also reissued a scientific report as a two page paper that claimed drilling would not result in a negative impact to wildlife.
FACT: Secretary Norton “altered or omitted” key scientific conclusions prepared by federal biologists that contradicted her view. Biologists also found that drilling would harm must oxen, snow geese and polar-bear populations and would violate an international treaty protection bears, but these findings were suppressed. In the words of one Fish and Wildlife Service Official, “to pass along facts that are false, well, that’s obviously inappropriate.” (Politics and Science in the Bush Administration, Kennedy – Rolling Stone 12.11.03)
LIE: Vice President Cheney argued that ANWR drilling would only affect 2000, acres of Dulles Airport out of a total 19 million acres.
FACT: The 2000 acres Cheney cities are not contiguous. In fact, the oil is located in 35 discrete sites spread across the reserve and to extract oil it would be necessary to have roads and a pipeline covering 135 miles of wildlife habitat. (David Corn 4.13.01)
LIE: The Bush administration claimed that drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) was necessary to “secure America’s energy needs.”
FACT: A US Geological Survey concluded that drilling at ANWR would yield only approximately two years worth of oil consumption. (Corn – The Nation 10.13.03)
LIE: The Bush administration claimed that its regulation of mountaintop removal mining (i.e., leveling mountain peaks to extract coal) would improve environmental protections.
FACT: The Bush administration rejected a tougher Clinton administration proposal and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) determined that the administration’s proposals “cannot be interpreted as ensuring any improved environmental protection.” The FWS also found the Bush proposals “belie four years of work and accumulated evidence of environmental harm, and would substitute permit process tinkering for meaningful and measurable change.” In the two decades since the practice began, 724 miles of streams have been buried and 7 percent of the Appalachian forest cut down. (Shogren – Los Angeles Times 01.07.04).
LIE: Bush sought to justify oil drilling in Montana’s Lewis and Clark National Forest on the grounds that the people of Montana support it.
FACT: The plan is opposed by Montana residents, but supported by outside oil companies. (Missoula Independent 4.26.01)
OTHER
LIE: Vice President Cheney wrote to Congress requesting that they rein in the GAO’s investigation of his Energy Task Force meetings claiming “documents responsive to the [GAO’s] inquiry concerning the cost associated with the [task force’s] work” have already been provided.
FACT: The GAO was forced to go to court to obtain the documents and lost. Cheney only produced 77 pages of useless documents which was not a complete production in response to the GAO’s request. Cheney stonewalled the GAO to hide the cozy deliberations the task force had with energy industry representatives. (Dean – Findlaw.com 08.29.03)
LIE: Bush asked Congress to exempt the military from environmental laws protecting endangered species and migratory birds on the grounds that compliance hampered military training.
FACT: A General Accounting Office report found little evidence to support this claim. (New York Times 07.09.02)
LIE: In 2002 Bush promised Nevada residents that “sound science, and not politics, must prevail” in the selection of a nuclear waste dump.
FACT: The Bush administration is proceeding with creating a nuclear waste dump in Nevada despite a GAO report that scientific testing to determine the facility’s viability would not be complete before 2006. (Washington Post 03.25.02, Christian Science Monitor 03.05.02)
LIE: During the tight 2002 South Dakota Senate race, Bush appeared at a South Dakotan ethanol plant and pledge that he supported ethanol “because not only do I know it’s important for the ag sector of our economy, it’s an important part of making sure we become less reliant on foreign sources of energy.”
FACT: Bush’s FY2004 budget eliminates funding for the bioenergy program at the South Dakota plant. (Caught On Film: The Bush Credibility Gap)
ENRONGATE & SEC
LIE: Bush attempted to distance himself from Enron’s Kenneth Lay by claiming Lay supported his opponent (Governor Richards) in 1994 and he first got to know Lay only after elected.
FACT: Lay gave $37,500 to the Bush 1994 campaign and Lay claims he was “very close” to Bush at that time. (Slate 01.17.02) The Bush-Lay connection goes back much further, as in 1988, Bush lobbied the Argentinean government to award a contract to Enron. (Mother Jones March-April 2000)
LIE: Bush pledged to increase SEC enforcement in signing the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate reform legislation.
FACT: Bush’s FY2003 budget cuts SEC enforcement by $209 million. (Boston Globe 12.29.02)
LIE: In the Enron aftermath, Bush pledged “to do more to protect worker pensions”.
FACT: Four month’s later the Bush administration announced plans to permit employers to convert traditional pension plans into “cash balance” plans that lower benefits for long-serving workers. (Caught On Film: The Bush Credibility Gap)
FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES
LIE: In 2001 the Bush administration promised to create a $700 million “Federal Compassion Fund”.
FACT: The President did not allocate a single penny for the fund in his 2001 budget. (Green – The American Prospect 07.30.01).
LIE: The Bush administration claims there exists a “widespread bias against faith-based organization’s (FBOs) in Federal service programs” and that complying with federal anti-discrimination employment laws in a major obstacle to FBO participation.
FACT: Recent studies have found no barriers to FBOs participation in government programs and “no hard evidence that hiring requirements are keeping [FBOs from applying for government contracts.” (Hudson Institute – Fruitful Collaborations, The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy – Government Partnerships with Faith-Based Service Providers).
FOREIGN POLICY
LIE: Condoleezza Rice claimed “[The President has been] very supportive of the Nunn-Lugar program [which helps secure Russian nuclear materials]. The funding was not cut. . . . All the way back in the campaign, the president talked about perhaps even increasing funding for programs of this kind." --Meet the Press, November 11, 2001.
FACT: "The administration's budget request cut the Department of Energy part of the Nunn-Lugar program from $872 million to $774 million and the Department of Defense portion by another $40 million. The "materials protection and accounting" program that safeguards and monitors Russian nuclear materials was cut $35 million; the program to subsidize research facilities for jobless Russian nuclear scientists and keep them from working for terrorists, another $10 million. (Center for American Progress, Claim v. Fact Database)
LIE: In his October 28, 2003 press conference, Bush claimed that I was the first president ever to have advocated a Palestinian state."
FACT: On January 7, 2001, President Bill Clinton said, "There can be no genuine resolution to the [Middle East] conflict without a sovereign, viable Palestinian state that accommodates Israel's security requirements and demographic realities." (Corn – BushLies.com 10.28.03)
LIE: During his Asian tour, President Bush told Indonesian news that Congress has dropped opposition to military training programs for Indonesia and that the US was ready to “go forward with” a new package of training programs.
FACT: Congressional opposition to the training programs has increased due to concerns that the Indonesian military may have been involved in the killing of two Americans in Papua. In addition, no new programs have been planned or approved. (Priest – The Washington Post 10.20.03)
LIE: White House spokesman Ari Fleischer denied tacitly endorsing the Venezuelan coup by stating that the coup was the “result of a message of the Venezuelan people.”
FACT: That is exactly what he said as the White House foolishly backed the overthrow of a democratically elected government and was the only democracy in the western hemisphere that failed to condemn the coup. In addition, the Venezuela government claims to have a videotape of US officials discussing coup preparations with dissident soldiers. (Jonathan Chait 06.04.02, AP 10.22.03)
LIE: During the campaign, Bush promised Armenian groups that he would “ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people” who were victims of a “genocidal campaign.”
FACT: The Bush administration has refused to recognize the Armenian genocide. (Redding Record Searchlight 04.24.01)
LIE: Bush promised Jewish leaders “[a]s soon as I take office I will begin the process of moving the U.S. ambassador to” Jerusalem.
FACT: Bush has suspended any action to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. (Washington Post 06.13.01)
LIE: President Bush denied blaming the Clinton Administration’s Camp David Middle East peace summit for the Palestinian intifada.
FACT: The day before issuing this denial, Bush stated “we’ve tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn’t all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area.” (Slate 4.18.02)
FOREIGN TRADE
LIE: During the campaign, Bush stated he opposed “import fees” and would “work to end tariffs and break down barriers everywhere, entirely”.
FACT: As President, Bush has imposed tariffs on steel and softwood lumber increasing costs to U.S. businesses and consumers and risking retaliatory sanctions. (Washington Post 03.25.02, Business Week 03.25.02)
HARKEN & HALLIBURTON
LIE: In September 2003, when asked by Tim Hussert whether he was “involved in any way in the awarding of [Iraq] contracts” to Halliburton, Cheney replied “Of course not, Tim. . . . And as Vice President, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the [Army] Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the Federal Government."
FACT: Internal Pentagon documents reveal that the awarding of the Halliburton contracts “has been coordinate [with] VP’s office.” An internal Pentagon email reveals that the award of no-bid Halliburton contracts “has been coordinated with the VP’s office.” (Burger & Zagorin, Time Magazine 05.30.04, CAP Daily Report 06.01.04 and 06.15.04).
LIE: Bush claims that he “absolutely had no idea [about Harken’s liquidity problems] and would not have sold [his stock] had I known."
FACT: Harken’s president warned board members of liquidity problems that would “drastically affect” operations two months before Bush’s stock sale. Harken’s lawyers also circulated a memo warning executives and directors not to sell any stock. Bush sold his stock for $4/share and it quickly dropped to $1.25. (San Francisco Chronicle 07.05.02, Guardian 11.02.02, Washington Monthly 12.02)
LIE: Bush claims to have cooperated with an SEC investigation of his Harken transactions.
FACT: Bush quashed evidence that Harken’s lawyers advised Bush and other executives against selling their stock and only provided it to the SEC after it had ended its investigation. (Guardian 11.02.02)
LIE: Bush signed an agreement in which he promised to hold the Harken stock at issue for six months.
FACT: Bush sold the Harken stock two months later. (The Dubya Report 07.18.02)
LIE: Bush claimed he timely filed the required SEC disclosure form after selling his Harken stock and asserted that the SEC must have lost it.
FACT: Bush did not file until eight months after the deadline for doing so. (Washington Post 07.04.02)
LIE: Cheney claimed that while at Halliburton he imposed a “firm policy” against trading with Iraq. “[W]e’ve not done any business in Iraq since the sanctions [were] imposed, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn’t do that.”
FACT: Senior Halliburton executives claim there was no such policy. Halliburton’s affiliates signed contracts with Iraq to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment during Cheney’s tenure, helping Iraq increase crude exports by 450% between 1997 and 2000. Senior Halliburton executives were certain Cheney was aware of this business. Cheney also defended circumvention of a Clinton executive order banning US trade and investment in Iran. (Financial Times 10.05.00, Washington Post 06.23.01)
HEALTH CARE &
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
LIE: President Bush assured seniors that under his Medicare prescription drug program corporations would not “dump retirees from their existing prescription drug coverage.”
FACT: Under a little noticed provision quietly added by the administration, companies providing coverage to retirees are given a new subsidy and retain the subsidy even if they almost completely eliminate coverage for retirees. As a result, 3.8 million retirees are projected to have their coverage reduced or nearly eliminated. (Daily Mis-Lead 07.14.04).
LIE: The Bush administration claims its Medicare prescription drug cards will provide “significant price reductions off typical retail prices” for seniors.
FACT: A Congressional report found that the drug prices available to beneficiaries using the “discount cards” are no lower than existing prices and even higher than prices available in Canada, under the US Federal Supply Schedule and through discount pharmacies such as Drugstore.com. Moreover drug companies raised their prices by 3 times the rate of inflation immediately prior to the release of the “discount cards.” (Daily Mis-Lead 05.04.04, “New Medicare Drug Cards Offer Few Discounts, House Committee on Government Reform – Minority Staff April 2004, AP – 07.01.04)
LIE: During the October 17, 2000 debate, Bush promised a patients’ bill of rights like the one in his own state which included a right to sue managed-care companies for wrongfully refusing to cover needed treatments. “If I’m the president . . . people will be able to take their HMO insurance company to court.
FACT: The patients’ bill of rights bill has long been dead and the Bush administration argued before the Supreme Court against the Texas law’s provision permitting such suits
LIE: The Bush administration sold its Medicare prescription drug plan to conservatives in Congress as having a cost of $400 billion over ten years, enabling it to narrowly win passage in December 2003.
FACT: The White House knew the costs were $551 billion - more than 25 percent higher. The administration threatened to fire Medicare’s top financial analyst (Richard Foster) if he released the information. Two months after the President signed the law, the administration revised its costs estimates to $534 billion.
One month after passage of the bill, the White House revealed that the program costs actually were $534 billion - more than 25 percent higher. AARP, which worked with the administration in drafting the bill, revealed that these higher estimates were "well known in the fall" but is only now being made public. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based budget watchdog group claim Congress got "suckered by a classic financial bait-and-switch by the administration." (Kemper & Simon - Los Angeles Times 01.31.04, Pugh - Knight Ridder 03.11.04, Kemper - Los Angeles Times 03.14.04, CAP Progress Report 03.15.04.
LIE: The Bush administration is fighting importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada by claiming they are unsafe and thereby protecting pharmaceutical companies who have given over $74 billion (or $2,033 per hour) since 2000.
FACT: HHS and FDA officials cannot identify a single American injured as a result drugs purchased from licensed Canadian pharmacies. One of the nation’s leading health experts stated the administration’s argument was “hogwash” since “drugs purchased through the Canadian health care system are every bit as safe as those available in the United States.” (Daily Mis-Lead 02.25.04)
LIE: In signing the bill, Bush declared that "some older Americans spend much of their Social Security checks just on their medications. This new law will ease the burden on seniors and will give them the extra help they need.”
FACT: Most Medicare beneficiaries will end up paying MORE for their prescriptions. The average beneficiary out-of-pocket expenses would rise from $2,318 in 2003 to $2,911 in 2007 (in 2003 dollars), since the law prohibits the government from negotiating for lower prices (unlike the VA which uses its negotiating power to save billions on drug prices). (Campaign for America’s Future Fact Sheet)
LIE: “My drug plan helps those who need it most. The new benefit provides comprehensive drug coverage for people with low incomes.”
FACT: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that “several million of the nation’s poorest elderly and disabled beneficiaries will be made worse off by the new legislation, because they will have to pay more for drugs than they currently pay under Medicaid, will be denied coverage for some drugs they currently receive through Medicaid, or both.” The $600 "transitional" drug benefit that starts in June is not available to the 6.4 million lowest income Medicare beneficiaries who are also enrolled in Medicaid, nor to the 11.7 million seniors who have retiree coverage.
In addition, currently millions of Medicare beneficiaries have private insurance to fill the gaps in their Medicare coverage (“Medigap” policies), but the new law prohibits the sale of Medigap policies. According to the Congressional Budget Office approximately 2.7 million seniors could lose benefits more generous than provided under Medicare. (Campaign for America’s Future Fact Sheet; Center for American Progress 02.05.04)
The Bush’s Administration’s Medicare Ads
LIE: "It's the same Medicare you've always counted on, plus more benefits like prescription drug coverage."
FACT: Millions of Medicare beneficiaries will have fewer benefits due to this law. Seniors who have supplemental drug coverage through Medigap must drop it if they want to join the new drug benefit. Employers will drop drug coverage for 2.7 million retirees due to the new drug benefit. Employers will reduce drug coverage for up to 9 million additional retirees due to flawed employer subsidies in the law. 6.4 million seniors who have drug coverage through Medicaid now will be forced to enroll in the Medicare drug benefit. As a result, they will have higher cost sharing and be denied coverage entirely for some drugs. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)
LIE: "You can save with Medicare drug discount cards this June. And save more with new prescription drug coverage in 2006."
FACT: Savings are elusive and erode over time. Drug discount cards are not guaranteed to provide any meaningful discounts, may not cover the drugs seniors need, and may change discounts and covered drugs at any time. Medicare is prohibited from maximizing savings by negotiating lower drug prices. Under the drug benefit, some beneficiaries will not save and in fact will spend more than they do now. Seniors will still have to pay up to 100% of drug costs due to the gap in coverage ("donut hole") and ability for private plans to impose strict drug formularies, prior authorization requirements, etc. The value of the drug benefit shrinks much faster than inflation, meaning seniors will have to spend an ever-increasing share of their income on prescription drugs. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)
LIE: "So, my Medicare isn't different, it's just more?"
FACT: Less Medicare benefits for higher premiums. Higher Part B deductible beginning in 2005 and each year thereafter. Higher Part B premiums for all beginning in 2005 as a result of overpayments to private plans. Higher Part B premiums for those with incomes above $80,000 beginning in 2007. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)
The Bush’s Administration’s Medicare Mailer
LIE: "This new law preserves and strengthens the current Medicare program.”
FACT: The bill weakens Medicare by privatizing it, at great cost to beneficiaries and taxpayers. The President estimates the new law will result in an extra $46 billion going to private plans. The Congressional Budget Office agrees with the President that the cost of covering seniors through private plans is "substantially higher" than the cost of covering them through traditional Medicare. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)
LIE: "You will choose a prescription drug plan and pay a premium of about $35 a month."
FACT: Premiums will vary and are not limited to $35 or any other amount. Private plans get to decide what premium they want to charge. The premium will vary plan by plan, area by area, and year by year. Over time, the premium rises
Posted by: Peace + Love at September 28, 2004 03:42 AM
See http://rvhosting.com/poll
However, if you examine the page closely, the polling technique is a bit suspect.
Posted by: Rick Varnum at September 28, 2004 02:43 AM
HAHAHAHA!!!! LOL!!!! HAHAHAHAAAAAAAA.....! LMFAO! Real Good Republicans. You people are sick!
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at September 28, 2004 10:22 AM
Very good peace+love! The Republicans are so closed minded they really believe GW JR hasn't lied to the American people. As I tell some of the people I talk to about the upcoming elections, most Republicans won't believe GW JR is lieing until the terrorst acutally knock on their door with a automatic aka weapon or America is pushed so far in the dirt that its much closer to the bottom than the top. Then it will be to late. Luckily, our Constitution was designed for people like this, and GW JR will go home or to Iraq. Those are his only choices at this point.
Peace
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at September 28, 2004 10:31 AM
Peace + Love:
Thank you for posting all the information about the TRUE flip-flopper. George Bush tagged John Kerry (in a negative way) with being a flip-flopper. Well, as you and I know, George Bush himself is the master of flip-flopping. George Bush lives in a glass house. You know with that means? We see what he does and he doesn't have anywhere to hide. That is why he shouldn't throw stones. The results of George Bush's lies have negatively impacted John Kerry. It just goes to show that too many people are susceptible to lies.
I haven't had the time to put together a message like yours, but I sure do appreciate it. Conservatism posted a lengthy bit of Republican gruel recently. I think that we were supposed to be impressed by its length. I would like to see him (or her) answer your post. I need a good laugh. Actually, I already had my good laugh when I read your informative post. I chuckled as I thought of the ways in which the Republicans on this blog were going to attempt answer it.
I hope that you continue to post on this blog. It is rampant with conservative ideologues that need to be shown that not everyone believes their BS. If you keep it to the facts, then that would be good. Facts trump the made-up fantasies that these Republicans post any day.
Thanks again!
Posted by: JM at September 28, 2004 11:04 AM
Rick, good point - apparently dead people here in Michigan vote democratic as well. At least if Kerry wins (perish the thought), we know that it wasn't the living that voted him in. Bush/Cheney '04
Posted by: Stephanie at September 28, 2004 11:28 AM
Peace + Love
While you make some good arguements, certainly you can understand the difference between Kerry flip-flopping. where Kerry contradicts Kerry and many of your claims Where George Bush says something and then somebody else says something different. Sources and comparisons are important.
The New York Times is no friend of George Bush so when they write something about him I don't disregard it, I just fact check it. If 10 people in the Administration say the same thing as george Bush but one says something different, that's who gets the quote in the times.
The accusations on Kerry changing positions is on Kerry vs Kerry. His statements compared against his statements. You can't take a position by Ted Kennedy and compare that to Kerry's position as a flip-flopper anymore than you can take a position by Colin POwell and compare it to George Bush and call it a flip-flop.
I'm not disregarding any of your posts, just trying to put some context to it. Second point. On any policy, you will find groups that agree and groups that disagree. The Center for American Progress claims to be a bipartisan group but it's doesn't take long to realize they simply don't like George Bush and most of their reporting is biased against him (the source for most of your post). While AARP, an organization formed for the protection of the Social Scuirty system and needs of the elderly, has some disagreements with the Bush Administration, it was instrumental in the formation of the new program and says the changes are an improvement. Neither Bush nor AARP had any control over the drup companies raising of prices immediately after the program was initiated. I suggest you go online, read the actual bills, then read the President's actual comments and then do your own comparisons. Not rely on biased journalism for information.
I'm not saying that all of your points are invalid. They aren't. The President has made some mistakes. My vote isn't based on Kerry's position as flip-flopper. My vote is based on his votes as a Senator. I am willing to accept that Politicians always put the best face on their candidacy and policy, sometimes that requires that they stretch the truth. This gives both candidates the opportunity to challenge the opponent and point out the lies. In both cases, the lies are usually overstated and the intention of the bill is ignored.
President Bush has been a President to bring in leading groups and authorities on policy and engage in debate on what is the best course of action to follow. That's why he brough AARP on board to help with the Social Security program. That's why he brought in leading educators for the no child left behind program. He's willing to listen before he takes a position on legislation. His cabinet is the most diverse cabinet of any administration, both ethnically and positionally. Most in his administration say that he wants debate.
By contrast, John Kerry has spent 18 years in the Senate and has never sponsered a single piece of legislation that was approved. Further proof of this is that John Kerry spent 18 years as a Senator and nobody outside of Massachussetts knew his reputation as a Senator. You can't say that about any other Senator who spent as much time affecting the legislation that leads this country. A careful study of both his foreign and economic policies shows that he is closer to President Carter and if you were around during those years, you might remember how bad that was.
The point is simple. Either side can find points on isolated comments by either candidate to challenge the effectiveness of legislation and positions. Some groups praise and some groups condemn. Most groups have an agenda. Unfortunately we relly on the filtering of information rather than fact checking for ourselves. We then have to compare and then decide.
As far as John Kerry's flip-fllopping, the American perception is based upon his positions on the war in Iraq and his inability to clearly state what he means, they call it nuance. It will be his problem during the debates.
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 28, 2004 12:09 PM
Isn’t this amazing! “Bush Scores Points in Florida”
Today Korea announces in made nuclear weapons from 8 spent reactor rods! This administration has drug its feet for the last 4 years and has now allowed this rogue nation in Asia to develop and now have nuclear wepons ready for deployment. The Bush Administration attacked Iraq because of WMD’s that did not exist and the iminant threat to America and sat back and allowed Korea to do this! What in good gods name did he think Korea was developing over the last 4 years that we had proof of? What is a bigger threat to America and our troops now? The bush Administration has allowed and put this country now in more peril than Sadam ever could have. We have Iran developing WMD’s also now who gives a damn about scoring points in Florida? This Administration has been a mistake and a joke and the state of world affairs is now proving it. Nice job this man has now once and for all proven to me he is a total idiot!
Re-Elect this man again and we will have to worry about Terror acts against us we will be in a cold war once again with Nations like Korea, Iran and who ever else can develop a weopn like this.
We have 17000 men on the ground in Afganistan and can not locate Osama, 250,000 in Iraq fighting all kinds of insergants from all over the Middle East and have countries like Korea and Iran developing Nuclear weopons ! Wake up America welcom back to the Nuclear arms race again this time countries that could care less about using them against us have them now thanks to this go it alone Administration!
Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at September 28, 2004 12:34 PM
The ultimate flip flop is this administration! Go after Sadam for WMD's and allow other countries like Korea and Iran to develop nuclear WMD's and missils!
This Administration has to GO!
Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at September 28, 2004 12:36 PM
North Korea turned plutonium from 8,000 fuel rods into nuclear weapons, minister says
Tuesday, September 28, 2004 By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS - North Korea says it has turned the plutonium from 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods into nuclear weapons to serve as a deterrent against increasing U.S. nuclear threats and to prevent a nuclear war in northeast Asia.
Warning that the danger of war on the Korean peninsula "is snowballing," Vice Foreign Minister Choe Su Hon provided details Monday of the nuclear deterrent that he said North Korea has developed for self-defense.
He told the U.N. General Assembly's annual ministerial meeting that Pyongyang had "no other option but to possess a nuclear deterrent" because of U.S. policies that he claimed were designed to "eliminate" North Korea and make it "a target of preemptive nuclear strikes."
"Our deterrent is, in all its intents and purposes, the self-defensive means to cope with the ever increasing U.S. nuclear threats and further, prevent a nuclear war in northeast Asia," he told a news conference after his speech.
Nice Job Bush! Nice job making this country safer!
Now we not only have to worry about Osama a=we need to wrry about Korea that has weopons of mass destruction! Nuclear Weopons people!
How safe to you feel now? This president has unraveled the Nuclear arms treaty and now Iran, Korea and who ever else will be a WMD threat to this country!
Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at September 28, 2004 12:47 PM
I am very happy to see that Senator Kerry has lightened up a bit. I like to be able to laugh about how ridicilous GW JR really is.
Chris, I read your very serous posts, and believe me, I understand. America belongs to Americans not religious fanatics. I don't agree with abortion, The death penalty, or same sex marriage, but I do believe in a womans right or same sex partners right to make that decision for themselves. Why do we pray to God for Answers and direction if GW JR can do it all? As for Stem Cell, we as Americans honestly don't know what's going on in the world of Science. That goes for Bush. He is only following his Party's close minded ideals. If it were not for President Ronald Reagan's death and his son appearing at the DNC, I don't think this would be an issue at all. It appears to me that most Republicans are only using these issues to put tags on people (666 The Mark Of The Beast). The same things are ongoing in America for years in past Republican and Democratic Presidency's, Bush, can't stop it any more than he can stop illegal aliens from crossing our borders. I try as best as I can not to get cought in the propaganda. I try to take forthcoming issues at face value. We need to end the Iraq war. It has gone on far to long, and America is losing. American is suffering from a very poor economy. We need more policies directed towards lifting America's effort to rebound from its current very poor economical state. We need a person to Unite our Country instead of Divide it. Believe it or not, Americans still run this Country, it was never Bush, he is a paid American servant, who clearly abused the power of office as U.S. President.
Kerry was cracking up his partisan crowd by telling Wisconsin voters they shouldn't be wary of changing horses midstream when the horse is drowning. He tied the metaphor to reports that the Bush campaign insisted that podiums in Thursday's debate be set relatively far apart to obscure Kerry's five-inch height advantage.
"May I also suggest that we need a taller horse?" he said. "You can get through deeper waters that way."
But Kerry still slips into his comfortable old Senate-speak sometimes. On Monday, he boasted of his role in the Conservation Security Act that Sen. Tom Harkin helped pass, without pausing to think that Wisconsin voters might not recognize that Harkin is the junior senator from Iowa.
But he drew guffaws at Temple University last Friday when he criticized Bush for dragging his feet before appearing before the Sept. 11 commission "but only with Vice President Cheney at his side." And he told late-night host David Letterman last week that Bush only agreed to debate if he could sit on Cheney's lap.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at September 28, 2004 01:00 PM
d. jones
You are insane! You create a poll on the internet See http://rvhosting.com/poll
and then claim it is fact. No wonder you are a Dem - they lie and mislead like you.
Folks!!! d. jones CREATED HER OWN POLL TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE KERRY IS DOING BETTER THAN HE IS. He is soooo pathetic that we should pity him. Poor d. jones
Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 28, 2004 01:00 PM
Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at September 28, 2004 12:34 PM
Those 'missils' are danjerus!!! And I'm glad to see that we've went from 140,000 to 250,000 in iraq! When did this happen?
Posted by: Conservatism at September 28, 2004 01:44 PM
Posted by: Conservatism at September 28, 2004 01:44 PM
You see Mr. Conservatism all you can do is make fun of a real threat to this country and defend false ones like Iraq. Keep in mind the real threat was only Osama and we made it Sadam and now we have to worry about Korea and Iran with real WMD's and you defend an administration that has allowed the world and this country to become more unsafe now than what was presant with the bay of pigs!
This is why Bush will lose and this country will see that Bush is the Threat to this country and his ill advised policies.
Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at September 28, 2004 02:16 PM
It is a crying shame that all Republicans can do is spin spin spin to avoid talking about the real issues at hand. They criticize and belittle people to make themselves feel better to justify there own false believes! They do not want to talk about the real like the threat of Korea having nuclear weopons, they do not want to talk about Iran developing one also, they do not want to talk about Osama still being the real threat not Iraq, they do not want to talk about Iraq being on the verge of civil war, they do not want to talk about the fact that our actions there are only helping creat more terrorists and insurgents there. They do not want to talk issues or facts!
They want to believe what the Bush Administration says about Iraq being safer and that free elections will go forward, they want to believe that this Iraq government is in control of what is happeniing over there, they want to believe that horse cr** smells like rose's too!
The truth to the matter is the entire Bush administration could not recognise the truth if it was a ton of bricks that fell on Bush's head! They would say they were feathers most likely!
Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at September 28, 2004 02:51 PM
I find it ironic that you claim that people are "Biased" against bush. I say they are TRUTHFUL about him. have you no head on your shoulders to think for yourself on all Bush has said? The facts are the facts, and disregarding them just because most of the media is willing to shill for this administration is irresponsible.
YOU MISSED THE POINT OF MY POST. KERRY DOESN't CONTRADICT HIMSELF. ITS NUANCED AND TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, THAT SITUATIONS CHANGE, AND OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE SITUATIONS CHANGE AS WELL. YOU CAN'T COMPARE PARTIAL STATEMENTS, AND YOU CAN'T DO SO WITHOUT PUTTING IN IN CONTEXT. WE WERE ALL LIED TO BY THIS ADMINISTRATION, AND THAT INCLUDES JOHN KERRY. THE INFORMATION SHOWN TO THE SENATE WAS NOT THE SAME AS THE CLASSIFIED UNTOUCHED INTELLIGENCE THAT THE INFORMATION WAS ORIGINALLY FROM. JOHN KERRY HAS BEEN VERY CONSISTANT, BUT NOT STUBBORN. HE'S WILLING TO CHANGE HIS POSITION IF ITS NO LONGER THE RIGHT POSITION TO TAKE ON AN ISSUE, UNLIKE BUSH WHO WONT EVEN ADMIT A SINGLE MISTAKE.
IF YOU CARE SO MUCH ABOUT THESE ISSUES, THEN LOOIK UP THE REAL CONTEXT OF KERRY'S SPEECHES. READ THEM. LISTEN TO THE NUANCE, AND HIS UNDERSTANDING OF A VERY COMPLEX ARRAY OF ISSUES. POLITICS ISN'T ABOUT TAKING ONE POSITION ON AN ISSUE AND NEVER CHANGING. ITS ABOUT MAKING AN INFORMED DECISION, AND CONSTANTLY RE-EVALUATING THOSE DECISIONS IN LIGHT OF NEW FACTS, AND IN LIGHT OF THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THAT OUR MEDIA IS FAILING MISERABLY TO LOOK OUT FOR US. WHY? YOU MAY ASK?
THE NEWS ISN"T ABOUT THE NEWS... ITS ABOUT PROFIT!
WAKE UP!
MAYBE THOSE "biased" sources have a reason to be so. especially considering that the rest of the media is biased towards "dubya".
you disregard BUSH's flip-flops, and his LIES. Why? They are there... clear as crystal. ARE YOU AFRAID TO CHANGE YOUR MIND? ARE YOU AFRAID OF BEING WRONG?
POLITICS ISN"T ABOUT STICKING TO A SET OF STANCES ON ISSUES. ITS ABOUT MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS BASED ON THE FACTS AS THEY BECOME CLEAR.
How about these facts for you.
1. We were attacked by Al-queda while bush was in office. A. They should have prevented it, and had information that could have been used to be aware that an attack was imminent (aug. 6th PDB); but not one counter-intelligence meeting was called in response to the imminent threat.
2. We attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and has no weapons of mass destruction, and was no imminent threat to us. We were told it was. THATS A LIE. A. The president promised to create a broad coalition, which was not done. He promised to take another vote at the UN so everyone could "put their cards on the table", he never went for that vote. B. The UN weapons inspectors were doing their job, and saddam was meeting our demands... but Bush decided instead that he would not be patient, and attacked (we should have let the weapons inspectors take care of disarming Iraq.)
3. We didn't send enough troops to keep the peace, and we've felt the reprucussions of that decision with a growing insurgency which is getting worse by the day. Bush didn't send our troops over with enough body armor or vehicle armor. Bush threatened to veto any bill which would improve the healthcare for our troops.
4. What about the no-bid contracts to cheneys onld company HAliburton? Cheney owns stocks in it and makes money from deffered payments. CAN WE SAY CONFLICT OF INTEREST? Our military is fully able to do construction, and take care of making its own meals... ever heard of a cook?
It gets worse and worse the deeper you dig. So start digging my friends. Don't let your ideology fool you... they are using that to get your vote. They are crooks, they look out for the richest... and the media is amoung those... is it any wonder that they tend to shill for them?
Please wake up america. If bush is in office again, he will not have to worry about being re-elected... and things will get much worse, and when it finally dawns on you, there will be nothing we can do. Republicans have a majority in all the branches of government. DON'T YOU THINK WITH COMPLETE CONTROL THAT THEY COULD ACTUALLY MAKE DECISIONS THAT WOULDN'T HURT US?
Healtchare costs are up, average wages are down, and we are a million jobs in the hole since bush took office. WAKE UP AMERICA. Don't let the rich steal our dreams, or our country.
Posted by: Peace + Love at September 28, 2004 04:40 PM
All I can say is get a clue. The Dems are going into panic mode. They are now going to say anything to try and scrap up votes. Kerry is losing his support among Democrats. Kerry is losing his support among women voters. Kerry is losing his Catholic voters. Kerry is losing. All the die-hard supporters can possible do is say "I can't be wrong, everybody else must be wrong. They must be idiots!' Keep spreading the lies. Keep reporting the rhetoric. You keep telling us all how stupid Americans really are, agreeing with Michael Moore. Maybe the truth is that you guys are the foolish ones. Maybe you guys are the ones willing to belive anything just to you can't oust the president. The rest of America is learning. They are seeing the basless lies and attacks of Kerry and his kool-aid gang and Kerry's self appointed mission to uncover all of the SECRET PLANS of the Bush administration. I'm starting to believe the rumor that the Democratic party really doesn't want Kerry to win because that would ruin their plans for Hillary in 2008. Why else would they use falsified documents in some of their ads? They had to know. They couldn't be that stupid. Then again, maybe they are.
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 28, 2004 04:53 PM
d.jones:
I see that we agree on certain issues. I am also against abortion. I am also against same-sex marriage and the death penalty. The difference between me and the Republicans who "always know what is right for me" is that I believe in personal choice. Although I am against same-sex marriage, that doesn't mean that I am against the issues that concern gay people as far as things like property and inheritance rights and the right to make decisions on behalf of a dying companion. As far as abortion is concerned, I can't personally support it. I would prefer that the decision be made by the people involved. I don't think it is the place of the government to dictate that decision. I believe that people need to be educated about the horror of abortion and about sexuality in general. I would hope that education would make abortion much less prevalent. Life is a gift from God and to end life, even a fetus, is an abomination. With this said, I still will support John Kerry over Mr. Bush because Mr. Bush has lead this country in the wrong direction on many of the issues that I am concerned with. Besides, I don't trust liars that call themselves "born-again". That just doesn't go together.
Posted by: JM at September 28, 2004 06:01 PM
To Stephanie and Rick,
Don't be so smug. How many people in Florida were prevented from voting because that state administration messed around with voting lists? Some people will do anything to win and it doesn't matter which party they belong to.
Posted by: JM at September 28, 2004 07:07 PM
Calamity Jane:
I already indicated that I didn't think that Kerry was going to win in Georgia. What I said is that you were indeed wrong about one poll which d.jones mentioned. It did show that there was only a 1% difference between Kerry and Bush. It doesn't mean that the poll was correct, but it may indicate that things are just a little closer than people like to believe. I for one don't place too much emphasis on any poll. The only important poll is the day that we all get to vote.
Posted by: JM at September 28, 2004 07:12 PM
d.jones,
"I'd have already finished the Florida poll, but Bush didn't sign the Kyoto Treaty so now we have Global Warming which, as all of us who enjoy the musings of Terry McAuliffe know, creates hurricanes. So now I'll have to put off my poll because of some dumb conservative."
Ok, blame Bush for global warming as well. If you were to look at a satelite map in real time, you would see the majority of polution coming from developing countries like Brazil, Indonesia, the west coast African States, and... oh yes,... let's not forget China, who has all but refused to cut emissions from CFC's and other propellants.
It doesn't matter that environmentalists have been concerned about global warming since the 70's. Yeah, Bush is the culprit of global warming like OJ is innocent and the next NFL championship team will be my 6th grade team.
Keep it real. You are doing the same thing Kerry has been doing, contorting the truth to represent your beliefs. Your name must be Michael Moore.
"Redumblicans"? I think "Lie"-berals is more accurate.
"Hi, I'm D. Jones, and well, I'm really smart. Not because I'm well educated or anything."
No, you're not. We can tell from your writing syntax.
"I'm just smart because I think the Redumblicans are dumb, and because I watch CBS."
You and Dan Rather are best friends now, aren't you. CBS is loosing ratings, and will continue to loose ratings because of his non-investagatory partisan reporting.
d.jones, you're educational background (displayed by your many postings) proves the conservative call to arms.
You're copatriots have destroyed school systems and funding issues throughout the western U.S. Liberals have taken over Washington, Oregon, and California and have destroyed their schools an the funding provided to those schools through ballot measures and through large tax breaks to big business. You even have one liberal mayor, in Portland, OR. I think, that believes the only way to fight the system is through violence. Yet your angle on politics speaks of peaceful resolutions. This is just as contradictory as Kerry is on any of the subjects presented to him.
Posted by: Robert at September 28, 2004 08:25 PM
I found this amusing story on USAToday about a local newspaper in Crawford, TX (Bush's current address):
CRAWFORD, Texas - A weekly newspaper that bills itself as President Bush (news - web sites)'s hometown paper endorsed John Kerry (news - web sites) for president, saying the Massachusetts senator will restore American dignity.
The Lone Star Iconoclast, which has a circulation of 425, said in an editorial dated Sept. 29 that Texans should rate the candidates not by hometown or political party, but by where they intend to take the country.
"Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his initiatives to disable the Social Security (news - web sites) system, the deteriorating state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous mistakes regarding Iraq (news - web sites)," the editorial said.
The Iconoclast, established in 2000, said it endorsed Bush that year. It also said it editorialized in support of the invasion of Iraq, and publisher W. Leon Smith promoted Bush and the invasion in a British Broadcasting Corp. interview, believing Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) possessed weapons of mass destruction.
"Instead we were duped into following yet another privileged agenda," the editorial said.
The newspaper praised Kerry for "30 years of experience looking out for the American people" and lauded his background as "a highly decorated Vietnam veteran."
Posted by: JM at September 28, 2004 09:58 PM
d.jones,
I am happy to see Senator Kerry has gotten a sray tan. It looks great? Just trying to be more upbeat for you. It is a very nice shade of orange, I think they call it nuclear orange.
If he is elected can we call him Agent Orange?
Orange you glad we live in America?
Bush and Kerry is like comparing apples to oranges.
Do you think he did this to get the Florida orange growers vote?
Oh well, here today and orange tommorow.
Posted by: Wayne at September 28, 2004 10:44 PM
d.jones,
If John Kerry loses, do we call him Senator Sunkist?
Posted by: Wayne at September 28, 2004 11:25 PM
If we elect Kerry we will have to worry even more... look at the historical context:
John Kerry and Jane Fonda actually flew to Paris, where negotiations between the North and South Vietnamese governments was in progress. After talking to both parties, without authorization or sanction from the US Government, they returned and both began to promote the North Vietnamese government proposal that if the United States submit a timetable for withdrawl, the thousands of prisoners being held in North Vietnamese prisons would be returned. This is a crucial element in the Kerry controversy of being a 'traitor'; that while still a Naval officer, he did exactly what the code prohibited, commisserating with an enemy of the United States, as well as trying to influence negotiations then returning and advocating the terms of the enemy, the North Vietnamese government; this is defined as treason. Here is what Kerry said about it:
"I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned. I think this negates very clearly the arguement of the President that we have to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a negotiating block for the return of those prisoners. The setting of a date will accomplish that".
-- John Kerry, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 22, 1971.
Now, imagine this happening next spring, thirty four years later. Again, I bring you... John Kerry:
I have been to to the United Nations. I have talked with the other UN delegations... and it has been stated by many other officials of this organization, the United Nations, if the United States were to set a *resolution* for withdrawal the nasty mean Islamic bullies will stop shooting, beheading and torturing people, and be nice to us, and we may be rejoin the family of nations and once again be respected in the world. I think this negates very clearly the argument that we have to maintain a presence in Iraq, to use as a negotiating block for the humane treatment of our prisoners. The withdrawl will accomplish that.
--John Kerry, April 18, 2005, in front of the United Nations, delegating our foriegn policy to the United Nations to appease the terrorists to make them stooooop!!.
Doesn't sound quite as impressive the second time around, does it?
Do something about it this November 2nd, (November 3 for you, d. and Louis) and we won't have to worry about a traitor selling us out a second time, this time with the carte blanche the Oval Office will provide him.
Posted by: Dave at September 28, 2004 11:40 PM
Robert:
Your syntax isn't perfect either. If you would like, I will point the errors out to you. I didn't realize that this was an English Grammar class. Don't be so picky. Argue the ideas. Not everybody is proficient in grammar and spelling. It doesn't mean that they cannot think for themselves. I think all of this nonsense about how something is written is just an attempt to make the person who is criticizing the grammar and spelling feel better about himself. Should we give you a gold star?
One final point, the Republican party typically is the party of corporate welfare (from your post... and through large tax breaks to big business).
Posted by: JM at September 28, 2004 11:46 PM
So called Peace and Love,
Where is the peace and where is the love on your end. Thats what I love about you libs. You talk tolerance as long as people agree with you. HERE IS A NEWSFLASH. I DON'T CARE WHAT THE REST OF THE WORLD WANTS. OSAMA AND SADR WANT KERRY TOO. I am wide awake and I scanned your long mistatement of the facts. The facts are most of your sources are highly questionable and the ones that might be credible you spin to fit your argument.
You are the one who is misguided. You think if we raise taxes on anyone family who makes more than $50,000 a year and give away the store that we can just live peacefully and everyone will like us.
Newsflash. I have friends and family in the military and they mostly agree we are better off with Bush in the White House.
Look I hate to crash your party but the 60's are over and this is the real world. There are people who hate us for who we are. As for Canada, if we did not protect them who would? So don't tell me about their perfect world, healthcare and all. They have no miltary to speak of.
Clinton is a crook, he was impeached. Your party supports the killing of innocent unborn babies so that irresponsible people can take a life and continue their lives of convenience. Your party also has supported 40+ years of crippling a culture through a lack of accountability. They enabled a broken generation into believing that if they have more kids they can make more money by sitting home. Try going throught the projects some day and tell the New Deal really works.
One more thing what is your security clearance that you can question our intentions in Iraq. Everone including your beloved France and Germany knew Saddam had WMDS and biological weapons. Oh and by the way Ms. peace and love, where is the peace and love for the Iraqi men and women being systematically beaten, raped and killed. For years we talked about the Hololcust so we would never repeat the mistakes of the past and now you want to say we it wasn't good enough a reason to go to Iraq. Please where is the peace and love in that!!!
We are all hypocrites but please don't make it so obvious.
Here is one more tid bit for you. Sometimes our leaders don't give us all the details and let us speculate and you know what, that's ok. If I don't have all the details, well then, neither do or enemies. So maybe it is you that have been duped.
Don't be so ostentatious next time. Most conservatives have lives other than this blog and don't have the time to rebut your entire argument. So keep it short and I will be glad to pick apart your arguments, one point at a time. Now good night.
Posted by: Chris, OH at September 29, 2004 12:22 AM
By the way, Florida will go to Bush this year. Because the winds of change (provided by Charley, Frances, Jeane & Ivan) always include a cool breeze of reason to give perspective. Besides, the hurricanes have given us ample opportunities to tear down the Kerry/Edwards signs without anyone catching on, hee, hee, hee... [yes, d., I am being insensitive again, bring out your alter ego JM to scream at me, it makes my day] but the bottom line is that the Democrats, who openly lied, cheated and stuffed ballot boxes with the votes of dead men and illegally registered illegal immigrant migrant farm workers, will not turn the very process of representitive government into a caricature of itself, where the only tactic the Democrats have left to make fun of ugly county commissioners. We haven't forget, nor will we forget.
Posted by: Dave at September 29, 2004 12:24 AM
Posted by: Wayne at September 28, 2004 10:44 PM
Orange you glad we live in America?
HAHA!!, I am sorry fellow Kerry Supporters that was funny!
OK, OK, I'll get him!
(slap)Wayne, d. jones pimp slaps Wayne clear to
the White House, where GW JR is dressed up as Calamity Jane sitting on a horse with a wig on in an attempt to make himself look taller than Senator Kerry. LOL!
GW JR = The Villiage Idiot from Crawford, Texas and Hell, They don't even want him back!
Did anyone notice besides me that Barbra Bush (very nice lady) looks identical to former President George Washington. LOL! Hey, Republicans don't get mad at me. She probably takes pride in looking like our first U.S. President.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards
Posted by: d. jones at September 29, 2004 01:00 AM
Posted by: Robert at September 28, 2004 08:25 PM
Robert,
I don't have a clue what you are talking about. Do I know you? Are you simply slinging mud? Do you have the ability to freely write anything intelligent on this post? Are you another one of Conservatism's Republican clones?
Posted by: d. jones at September 29, 2004 01:03 AM
JM,
I am not nearly as liberal as the Republicans on this Blog would like to think. They forget that I am from the South (Texas), raised in a small country town, and attended Church every Sunday. Bush is truly the Texas village idiot. I have never trusted Bush, even before the truth about his strong ability to lie surfaced. This Presidency is GW JR's largest failure in life, and I hate the fact he took America on this ride without everyone having a ticket. He failed at everything else. He couldn't run an oil company, he couldn't run the Texas Rangers, and he really didn't want to be Texas Govenor, he only ran for Texas Govenor because of his last name "Bush" and far to much time on his hands. He sure as hell can't run the White House. I can honestly say that I am very impressed with Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards as well as their goals to unite all Americans again, restore our economy, clean up the War In Iraq so that we may find a light at the end of that dark, gloomy tunnel. I want to vote for someone who looks at the U.S. Presidency as a hard job.
Posted by: d. jones at September 29, 2004 01:49 AM
Don't worry about Kerry being orange during the debates.
There's still plenty of time for Kerry to change his color, and he probably will. At least he's consistent about his flips. Perhaps he's a true horse of different color.
By the way, d.jones, did you notice the anti-hillary banner at the bottom of your page at www.rvhosting.com/poll ?
Posted by: Rick Varnum at September 29, 2004 02:37 AM
For the amusement of Navy Vet a Cisco password set
Router>
en
router#
conf t
router(config)#
en password gwjrdummy
Ctrl-Z
router#
write mem
If John Kerry loses, do we call him Senator Sunkist?
Posted by: Wayne at September 28, 2004 11:25 PM
LOL!
Wayne, you are the largest dope in American History next to GW JR.
Posted by: d. jones at September 29, 2004 02:51 AM
JM
I AGREE ON NOT BEING HELD TO AN ENGLISH MAJOR, I CAN'T SPELL MY OWN NAME. SO I WOULD NOT WANT TO BE HELD TO THAT HIGH STANDERD. LIBERALS NOT YOU, ATLEAST NOT IN THE BELOW POST, WILL JUMP ON EVERY MIS-SPEAK OF G.W. BUSH AND TRY TO MAKE HIM OUT TO BE AN IDIOT. AS I HAVE POINTED OUT BEFORE HIS RESUME WOULD BE GREAT FOR ANY EMPLOYER. SO EVEN WHEN YOUR RIGHT I FIND A REASON TO POINT OUT WHY LIBERALS ARE WRONG. I ALSO HAVE POSTED POSITIVE REASONS CONSERVITIVES SHOULD WIN NOV 2ND VOTE FOR PRESIDENT BUSH. THANKS
JM (POST SEPT 28 11:46PM
Your syntax isn't perfect either. If you would like, I will point the errors out to you. I didn't realize that this was an English Grammar class. Don't be so picky. Argue the ideas. Not everybody is proficient in grammar and spelling. It doesn't mean that they cannot think for themselves. I think all of this nonsense about how something is written is just an attempt to make the person who is criticizing the grammar and spelling feel better about himself. Should we give you a gold star?
One final point, the Republican party typically is the party of corporate welfare (from your post... and through large tax breaks to big business).
Posted by: JM at September 28, 2004 11:46 PM
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at September 29, 2004 03:42 AM
I think Robert, Calamity Jane, Kathy, Conservatism, Stud, Dave and Earl are duplicates of the same people. They have similar posts. I am not quite sure who Navy Vet's alter ego is. hmmmm possibly wpnsgyn.
There seem to be a few Republicans MIA. I am not sad they are so quiet just curious as to what Conservatism did with them. Rick (Ohio) and Teresa.
Calamity kills me. What a character! It has this snap back type of responses. "GW JR is my horse riding buddy d. jones who do you ride with?" Conservatism in his original form posts really long articles, and gets angry when you mention alcohol and/or illegal drugs. That nut posted a book on the U.N. that Bush hasn't even read. Wayne is simply silly and always ask's "What about Kerry's voting record" Jim is original and posts really long free writing Republican speech's. They are almost as long as Conservatism' copy and paste efforts. I don't know where in the Hell Dave, Earl, and Robert came from. Navy Vet is easy to p*** off. wpnsgny is quiet and sneeky, kinda like a little pervert.
You Republicans know you had better not pi** off Louis, he will attack you with no end in site. I read in the posts were you GW JR's managed to make JM mad. Abel simply trys to reason with you nuts. If he gets angry it doesn't show.
In other campaign news, President George W. Bush told reporters today that he "doubted" that the Texas National Guard memos discovered by CBS last week could be authentic because "I know exactly where the real ones are hidden." LOL
See Ya!
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at September 29, 2004 03:50 AM
I think d.jones mis-spells on purpose so he can write under several names. Like JM?
Posted by: Wayne at September 29, 2004 07:49 AM
Peace+love
You totally disregard the 9/11 commission report and hold fast to the media spin. You also, like many of the Pro-Kerry supporters apparently have not read or did not hear the Presidents Speech before we went to war in Iraq. He laid out a specific plan and the reasons for going to war. He did not say he had weapons of mass destruction. He said he used them in the past and was in the planning stages of preparing them again. Iraq was a safe haven for terrorism. Saddam may not have been directly involved in the planning and suuport of the 9/11 attacks but his regime allowed for Iraq to be a safe haven for terrorists and provded them with financial support, along with the UN and the EU both of whom filtered money in support of Palestinian terrorist groups.
The war in Iraq would have inded in October of 2003. By now the country would have been well on the way to securing a free election and many of the structures rebuilt. What's stopping that? Terrorists. They are coming to Iraq because they don't want a free people or society and they now as we do that Iraq is one of the key elements to securing peace in the Middle East because of it's strategic location. With so many terrorist coming to Iraq (many of which are being killed) terrorism is losing it footing. It's also losing it's support among the Muslim people because they aren't just killing us, they are killing Muslim's.
Halibutron has been the major contractor used by most administrations in rebuilding other countries. It was that way during the Clinton Administration as well. The deferred payments that Chaney receives are from a retirement payment that was spread out over 6 years. He have received that money even if they used another company. There are other groups in Iraq doing the resturcturing.
No reporter has a right to be biased in their reporting. Their personal opinion should be just that. When they report the news, it should end with the news. You previously cited a web site that defines themselves with the agenda of taking down coservative values in favor of progressive ideology. You aren't going to get balanced information from a site like that. We tell us to do the research but have you read the 9/11 commission report? Have you read any of the released Department of Defense reports? Have you studied John Kerry's voting record? He had access to the same information the President had after the attacks. Back then, when he was running against Dean he supported the President and we committed ourselves to a war. When he realised he was losing in Iowa, he, to use your word, nuanced himself on his position. NO the President lied to us, he claims. Well, one of the people who fed this information to the President was John Kerry. Back in the Clinton Administration, Kerry accused Clinton of not being tough enough on Saddam because, as Kerry said, he had weapons of mass destruction. Now it's the President who lied, because the media has everyone beleiving this is what George Bush said. He didn't, read the speech. George Bush never said it. You also apparently attribute it to co-incidence that Saddam was developing weapons and a nuclear program and now Iran has them.
You say, do the research, it's what I've been saying all along. I've done it. I've read the reports and I've read the newspapers. The military is telling us that the fight is tough but we are going to prevail. The military is telling us that they've made some mistakes but they've learned because this is a new kind of war and that most of Iraq is secure. Allawi says the same thing, but of course, they are all just puppets for the Bush administration according to the news. They are lying and your precious biased sources are the only ones telling the truth.
And for JM, if the Republican Party is the party of corporate welfare, why has this administration be the strongest in their support of legal actions in the corporate world. Under Bill Clinton, the corporate world was getting away with cooking the books to make things look better than they were, under the Bush administration, they got to go to jail.
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 29, 2004 10:18 AM
Jim Rodkey:
You mention the "no child left behind" in one of your recent posts. Here is something that is just as much of a concern.
From USAToday:
Three dozen eminent pediatricians and social workers attacked the Bush administration on Wednesday for policies they said leave too many children without health insurance.
Reuters Photo
The doctors, including some well-known authors of manuals for parents and professionals, said they were taking the unusual step because they were worried about the state of U.S. health care.
"The Bush administration's policies are moving us away from effective and longstanding federal commitments that improved the health of children, commitments proudly initiated and supported by previous Republican and Democratic presidents," reads their statement, signed by 36 child experts.
"If not reversed, these ill-advised tax and budget policies will erode decades of hard-won health gains for children, while still leaving unaddressed such critical problems as child abuse, mental health, and alcohol and other drug abuse."
The statement echoes concerns expressed by many health professionals -- that the lack of a coherent U.S. health plan is leaving too many people without health care. This is costing more in the long run, they argue, as such people tend to get treated in expensive emergency rooms once their health problems reach a crisis.
The doctors, who include bestselling writer Dr. T. Berry Brazelton of Harvard University and former American Academy of Pediatrics president Dr. Joel Alpert of Boston University, were sponsored by Vote Kids, a nonprofit group that rates members of Congress based on their votes on child-related issues.
They endorsed President Bush (news - web sites)'s Democratic challenger, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites).
"We embrace Senator Kerry's straightforward goal: every child, indeed every American, should have the same affordable health care that is available to every member of Congress and senior government official," they said.
GOING WITHOUT INSURANCE
Census bureau figures show 45 million Americans had no health insurance coverage in 2003. Another nonprofit group, Families USA, said this week that 85.2 million people went without health insurance for some time during 2003 and 2004.
The pediatricians group said this latter number included 27 million children -- despite programs like the federally backed State Child Health Insurance Program, which they said has suffered due to the Bush administration's tax and budget policies.
"In the president's home state of Texas alone, nearly 150,000 children of working class families have been dropped from the State Child Health Insurance Program, leaving them without any insurance."
But Health and Human Services (news - web sites) Secretary Tommy Thompson defended the SCHIP program, saying he would use $660 million left over from previous years to cover any gaps in state funds.
"No state will be left short and no child will lose coverage due to a shortfall, period," he wrote in a letter on Wednesday to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican.
Posted by: JM at September 29, 2004 11:14 AM
Dave,
Thanks for your post because it gives me an opportunity to ask you if you believe people can change in their lifetimes? What John Kerry did was almost 35 years ago! He was basically still a kid who experienced something horrific in his life. How would you have reacted in his position? I don't think you or I can answer that because we were not put into that position in our lives. We didn't go to Vietnam as very young adults. Who knows what that type of experience does to somebody. George Bush's supporters want us to believe that he can change his life (ie, stop drinking and drugging, become "born again"), but your closed minds can't accept the possibility that John Kerry has changed in the past 34 years, too. Give the guy a break for pete's sake.
I know one thing about George Bush. His cocky attitude hasn't changed one bit during his lifetime.
John Kerry is not a traitor. Check out the Bush family history, especially the grandfather Prescott Bush who had connections to the Nazi's and then ask who is really the traitor?
-------------------------------------------------
Bush Property Seized--Trading with the Enemy
In October 1942, ten months after entering World War II, America was preparing its first assault against Nazi military forces. Prescott Bush was managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman. His 18-year-old son George, the future U.S. President, had just begun training to become a naval pilot. On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush.
Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the government took over the Union Banking Corporation, in which Bush was a director. The U.S. Alien Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corp.'s stock shares, all of which were owned by Prescott Bush, E. Roland `` Bunny '' Harriman, three Nazi executives, and two other associates of Bush
Posted by: JM at September 29, 2004 11:27 AM
Ok now we're going back to the President's grandfather to dig up dirt. Let's deal with the issues today. Let's start with the war on Iraq. Over the next several posts I lay out, case by case why I think Kerry is the wrong choice.
KERRY ON IRAQ
His current position is that the removal of Saddam Hussein has left America more bulnerable to attacks and less secure. He is currently against the war and has stated that, knowing what he now knows, he wouldn't have gone to war. Ignoring, of course, that we didn't know then, what we know now.
Although he voted fro what he now calls "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time", in a quote he stole from Howard Deam, now he says the war has made us "less safe". He once said voting against the funding of the war would be "irresponsible" that was of course before he voted against funding the war. No nuance, just a fact. He then said "it would be naive to the point of grave danger" not to confront Suddam. During the Democratic primaries he said "I think it was the right decision to disarm Suddam Hussein, and the President made the right decision. I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." That was before Hoawrd Dean took the lead in the primaries and then Kerry became, by his admission an "anti-war candidate."
He said he was his vote to authorize the President was so that America could send a United Message to Saddam, although in 1991 He chastised Congress that the vote to authorize former President Bush "This is not a vote about a message. It is a vote about war."
Kerry is saying that the removal of Suddam Hussein has left America "less secure". Unfortunately, he also told Howard Deam "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer after the capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credability to be elected president."
While Kerry is now saying we spent too much money on Iraq, in August of 2003 you said that we need to increase funding for Iraq "by whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win."
Kerry has actuall said that knowing everything we now know, he still would have voted for the war but now he is saying that the war was a mistake.
His current position seems to be that we are supposed to pretend that no position he has ever had on this war is supposed to matter. Kerry's speeches are ridiculed with the implication of inevitable defeat and a pull-out of our troops in Iraq. Does anybody really know where he stands on this issue? You can call it nuance, I call it confusing.
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 29, 2004 01:18 PM
Issue No 2: Diplomacy
Kerry claims that President Bush is a unilateralist ignoring the 30 nations in Iraq. He claims he is a multinationalist but then insults our allies who are supporting us in the war effort.
Kerry said that Iraqi Primi Ministers Allawi doesn't know what is going on in his own country and made an attack on him moments after Allawi finished thanking America for the liberation of his people. Kerry says we need more allies but he also called the countries that have helped us "co-erced, bribed, fruadulent, window dressing and barely willing to do anything at all." These comments are going to make it difficult for him to keep support from the countries that are currently helping us.
Kerry has called our troops "occupiers" and will not use the word liberators when he speaks of his support of our troops. Kerry has accused the President of rushing to war citing the Persian Gulf War as the model of diplomacy. He ignores the fact that six months seperated the vote for the war and the beginning of the war. Six months longer that it took the first Gulf war that he now praises even though he voted against that war. For the record, the Guld war started 2 days after the vote.
Kerry once questioned "where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France to confront Iraq." Now he is saying that if the President would have waited longer they would have helped. Kerry also stated during his convention speech that he will respond immediately "after an attack." so he is not willing to be pre-emptive.
His current position seems to be to imply that he is going to get the support of France and Germany who once promised President Bush they would help and didn't and France and germany have made it clear, they will not help. WHile Kerry claims that his critique of Allawi wasn't meant as an attack, his advisors are still telling us that Allawi is a "puppet of the President."
Empty promises by Kerry campaign about the support of the Reluctant Few and the insults against the many who have helped tells me that his diplomacy is sadly lacking.
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 29, 2004 01:29 PM
Issue #3: Intelligence
Kerry currently is claiming that the Bush Administration is moving too slowly on intelligence reform. However, in 1994 Senator Kerry proposed a $6 billion across the board cut to intelligence immediately after the first World Trade Center bombing. The proposal, thankfully, didn't receive much support and died. Senator Inouye said that his bill " would severly hamper" intelligence efforts.
Kerry missed 76 per cent of the public Senate Intelligence Committee hearings and is currently doing everything possible to suppress the release of private attendance records. Add that to the $80 million you voted to cut from FBI funding for the purpose of Counterterrorism.
Kerry is currently atatcking the President for moving to slowly on the 9/11 commission report even though 36 of the 41 propasals have already been implemented, an amazing feat knowing the record of Congress.
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 29, 2004 01:35 PM
Every parent with a child between 14 and 18 right now better take a look at themselves real hard in the mirror before they vote for Bush again. I want you to look real deep and tell yourself that you believe in this cause this administration has in the middle east and convince yourself than that you are willing to allow Bush to send your child over there to fight in this war that every Republican believes is justified!
When your child is drafted and possibly dies for this cause you can blame yourself!
Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at September 29, 2004 01:40 PM
Issue #4: Foreign Nations
ISRAEL: Senator Kerry has claimed that the security fence is both "a barrier to peace" and a "legitiamte act of Self-defense." This dramatic change of position is seperated by only 4 months and was to two different audience. The first many during the Araba American Institute and the second to a Jewish Audience. Kerry has called Yasar Arafat a Statesman and a "role model" in his book, the new war which also claimed that the real thres to America in the future will be the Japanese Yakuza.
CUBA
Kerry claimed that he voted for the Helms-Burton act which cracked down on companies dealing with Cuba but Kerry voted against it. He is currently saying that he will not lift the embargo against Cuba but in 2000 he said that Florida politics was the only reason the embargo was still in place. Is he for it or against it? We still don't know.
NORTH KOREA
Kerry's current position is that we need to deal directly with the North Koreans, seeking a return to the failed policy of the Clinton era of signing deals with the North Koreans that they have no intention of keeping. While he claims to be a multinationalist, he also called the multinational negotiations "basically a cover" implying they are not legitamate.
He says we should continue to negotiate even though they have ignored their part in the negotiations all along. I need a clear plan from Senator Kerry on this issue and so far haven't recevied any.
AFGHANISTAN
Kerry has claimed that the war on terror belongs in Afghanistan. Previously, however, the Senator has stated it "doesn't end with Afghanistan" and went on to explain that we needed to move on to address other threats "for instance, Saddam Hussein." Now Senator Kerry is calling the War in Iraq a distraction. However, when called on support the troops in Afghanistan, the Senator voted against the $87 billion that included ammunition and body armor supplies for our troops. Apparently Kerry wanted the war in Afghanistan and still thinks we should be there, but he is unwilling to provide the money to protect our troops in harm's way.
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 29, 2004 01:48 PM
ISSUE #5: THE PATRIOT ACT and HOMELAND SECURITY.
Kerry is busy telling all of America how bad the Patriot Act is nad how he wants to replace and/or reform this act. Kerry voted for the Patriot Act and made certain his voice were heard praising the Act on the floor of the Senate. On the wiretap provision he said that it "modernizes our ability to fight crime." Now he wants to change that under pressure from the ACLU. Kerry fails to mention that the Patriot Act still requires a search warrant although the ACLU thinks we should warn the terrorists before we search them. He also fails to mention that the Patriot Act gives law enforcement the same tools to use against terrorists that are currently in place against drug dealers.
On Homeland Security John Kerry says the efforts are "far more of a law enforcement and intelligence operation that it is a day-to-day military operation." However Kerry also wants to strip the law enforcement agency provisions under the Patriot Act. Kerry participated in the delay of the Department of Homeland Security creation by 112 days because he wanrted to make sure the Unions were protected. Then Kerry skipped the vote last year for the $29.3 billion Homeland Security appropriation. Now he is telling America that it was the President who delayed Homeland Security and that Homeland Security is underfunded. The truth is that the President tripled funding for Homeland Security since 2001 without the support or vote of Senator John Kerry.
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 29, 2004 01:57 PM
d. and the rest of the dem pack,
Face it, the debate is over! Bush is going to win by a landslide. Kerry is his own worst enemy! I will give my respect to most everyone of you except d. he/she is lower then dirt or kerry! Oh and forget you JM or should I say d. clone? I am going back on my prediction that I made, President Bush will win by 75 ECV and 18% PV. Na, na, na, na,... na, na, na, na, ... hey, hey, hey... Goodbye... I think I here the fat lady singing, it's all over but the crying for kerry.
P.S. Bush is going to clean the floor with kerry on debate night.
Posted by: David Lowery at September 29, 2004 02:15 PM
JM
re: trader from Posted by: JM at September 29, 2004 11:27 AM
Wow maybe we could go back to the civil see if we can find a Bush who farted at the dinner table. Come on son you can do better then that. 1. if it were provable he would of went to jail at the time not be come a senitor. 2.) It's his grandfather. 3.) Could say exactlly the same thing about Joe Kennedy, but he was not jailed so i will not make that claim.
So lets stick to things we can prove and to this generation. jm why are you taking the same kind of extreem view point as d.jones tell me why
Bush is wrong not that the whole faimly is felons.
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at September 29, 2004 02:59 PM
So, JM your point is that we can't hold John Kerry responsible for what he did 35 years ago, because people grow up and change, but we are supposed to hold George Bush responsible for what his grandfather did 60 years ago? Sheesh, get real! Isn't that just a wee bit of a double standard?
Posted by: kathy at September 29, 2004 03:09 PM
What rubbish Bush is a traitor because his grandfather was doing business with Gemany while it was legal But Kerry is not when he met with the North Vietnamese in Paris while a war was ongoing which was questionable in legal terms Nothing is to low for the Dummycrats to stoop to. The election is about 2004 and beyond if your canidate would actaully put ideas on the table you all wouldnt be so far down in the rubbish
Posted by: wpnsgy at September 29, 2004 03:33 PM
Bruce,
With all due respect, I am not a liberal. Not that it makes any difference because I do not have a problem with the word liberal. I am a basically a moderate with both a smattering of conservatism and liberalism depending on the topic.
Posted by: JM at September 29, 2004 03:37 PM
Dave:
Just because the "military people" in your family say that our country is better off doesn't mean squat. I guess that makes you and your family experts... at what, I do not know!
Posted by: JM at September 29, 2004 03:43 PM
Wayne:
You are a typical conservative conspiracist.
Posted by: JM at September 29, 2004 03:48 PM
Thats a cop out and you know it. Typical to lay tyhe blame around and not take responisbility. If you support this president, then go enlist. Seriously... ENLIST NOW OR JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT YOUR PSUDEO-PATRIOTISM.
GO FIGHT FOR THIS COUNTRY IF YOU BELIEVE ITS RIGHT. BUT DON'T VOTE FOR A MAN THAT WILL SEND OUR KIDS AND NOT GO YOURSELF. IF YOU SUPPORT BUSH, THEN GO FIGHT FOR HIM.
AND AS FOR ASKING ME IF I'VE READ THE REPORTS, YES!!! I DO MY OWN RESEARCH, THATS WHY I KNOW THE FACTS! THIS WAR WAS BASED ON A LIE, AND WE'VE LET OSAMA BECOME A PROPHET BY ATTACKING IRAQ FOR BASICALLY NO REASON. THE 9/11 COMISSION REPORT SHOWED NO TERRORIST COLLABORATION. DON"T TELL ME I KNOW THE FACTS, BECAUSE I DO! I SPEND MOST OF MY TIME RESEARCHING TO FIND THE TRUTH. BUT THE MEDIA TRIES TO DISTORT IT, AND CALL EVERYONE ELSE LIARS, I'LL ADMIT THEY DO AN EXCELLENT JOB...ITS THE BEST PROPOGANDA MACHINE EVER CREATED. PEOPLE ARE TOO LAZY TO LOOK THINGS UIP FOR THEMSELVES. AND THEY ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING THROUGH A FILTER. I'M NOT. I HAVE WOKEN UP.
BTW, the polls don't mean much considering the turnout in 2000. This election will have a huge turnout, and that effectively means that the polls are completely worthless. I honestly think that more people want John Kerry in office, than want to see another 4 years of an inept Bush administration. I for one am tired of it. So... in light of the fact that our troops are stretched thin, and we need more troops to deploy in Iraq.... and the possibility that another country might follow our example of pre-emptive war, we may need to re-impliment the draft to have enough troops to keep us safe. I for one don't trust Bush to keep the peace in this world. I think things would be much more peaceful with a president who is not arrogant.
I'm a strong supporter of John Kerry, and I live in Texas... most people around here aren't happy with Bush at all. The problem is that people don't know John Kerry. You will. The debates are coming, and the media just cant hide him forever. I know that John Kerry is our man, he will be a great president. He is a truly genuine American, who believes in the rights of the PEOPLE, not just the corporations.
If you still want to believe we live in a country with media that cares about OUR rights, and not money.... then go ahead and vote for bush. But if you are going to vote for Bush, then you better support him, and enlist in the military. The way Bush is going we'll need a lot more troops to keep fighting this perpetual war.
I am thankful that you care enough to hold strong beliefs, but one must always question things. Not just the things that don't fit what beliefs you already hold. I know that can be hard for religeous people. But the religeon issue is used as a wedge, for unconditional support... it works pretty well I must say. But politics and religeon shouldn't go together in this country, because it was based on a principle that we can each have our own beliefs... Religeon in politics allows laws to be made that reduce those rights. To me that is Un-American. I respect that you all are still torn up enough about this election to be posting here. Its a good sign that this president is being questioned by the people. And we must question him, and his motives. Just as we should question the Media and its motives as well. Personally, I watch C-Span. I like to get my information from the horses mouth so-to-speak. And I've had a bad feeling about Bush since this whole run up to war, when the story kept changing. The rational kept changing, and Bush broke his word and declared war. Since that time, things have only continued to be handled improperly.
DOESN'T ANYONE REMEMBER THAT THEY TOLD US THIS WAR WOULD BE PAID FOR WITH IRAQI OIL? LOL. YET ANOTHER LIE TO ADD TO THE LIST.
AND WHAT ABOUT BUSH'S TAX CUTS? BUSH SAID THAT THE MAJORITY WENT TO PEOPLE AT THE BOTTOM. BUT 1/3 OF IT WENT TO the top 2%. DID HE JUST NOT KNOW HIS OWN TAX PLAN? NEED I EVEN MENTION MEDICARE?
I've grown tired of hoping this will turn around, I am going to make them turn around... I'm voting for John Kerry this Nov.
Change begins with me, and I choose change.
Until next time ya liberals and neocons...
Peace, Love, and Kerry/Edwards 2004 <3
Posted by: Peace + Love at September 29, 2004 03:52 PM
d jokes at least you have something of a sense of humor you will need it for the next few weeks. Hey who was the joker that turned Kerry orange ?? NOW THAT IS FUNNY
Posted by: wpnsgy at September 29, 2004 03:57 PM
JM
First, at the rick of sounding cold. It isn't the Ferderal government's responsibility to make sure that all American's have healthcare coverage.
I don't have healthcare coverage because of a disease that struck me several years ago. It wasn't the government's fault, nor was it mine. I do what I can and don't expect the government to bail me out. My combined income makes me ineligable for the free healthcare that those on welfare receive and because my disease is only partially limiting I am not elligable for Social Security benefits.
It's sad that many don't have healthcare, but there has been an overall abuse of the programs and the numbers you quote show a huge disparity demonstrating that all sorts of methods are used to collect these numbers.
Since nationalized healthcare and frivolous lawsuits became the rage healthcare costs are skyrocketting at a disproportional ammount. When Clinton took office, my doctor visit averaged about 35 dollars. When he left office it had gone up to 70 dollars. That's remained unchanged in the Bush Administration, still 70 dollars. On the other hand, prescription drugs, for drugs that are often funded by government reasearch have seen increases of 150%. I agree that something needs to be done about spiralling healthcare costs but if we nationalize healthcare, as Kerry proposes, without restrictions on pharmaceuticals prices will continue to go through the ceiling. Once government gets involved it always happens. There's to much paperwork to make certain abuses aren't taking place.
I have a real problem with everyone who thinks the government should be the bail out for there problems. The airlines get in trouble, go to the government for a bail out. The auto industry has a problem, go to the government for a bail out. Mom and dad don't feel like working, go to the government for a bail out.
The children can't help it, they should be covered but we're going to need the co-operation of the medical system not their expectation to get a government hand-out. HMO's are bad. They limit doctor's abilities and they force doctor's fees and the often reward doctors for improperly diagnosing a patient. I don't hear the same pediatricians out there telling America that the healthcare programs are a shame because many of them are making a profit from them.
Government needs to regulate healthcare, not fund it. Government needs to make sure that healtcare is affordable for everyone, not pay for it for them. The same people who cry about the deficit complain because the government isn't paying for healthcare. If we fully funded healtcare for all Americans with the way things are right now, the deficit would triple. Think about that.
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 29, 2004 04:02 PM
JM,
If you want to make health insurance more affordable, get rid of the scum lawyers like John Edwards! All the baseless lawsuits for millions of dollars forces doctors to charge more for their services, to make up the difference for the malpractice insurance they have to buy. You cannot lay this on the President. If you want to lay blame on anyone, look to your guy Edwards.
Posted by: David Lowery at September 29, 2004 04:03 PM
djones: I never thought you were extremely liberal. I did think though, that you had firsthand experience about Mr. Mediocrity when he was governor of Texas. How he ever managed that feat, I am not sure. I used to like Ann Richards because she would say what was on her mind and didn't give a hoot about her detractors.
Per your comment: "I want to vote for someone who looks at the U.S. Presidency as a hard job". I couldn't agree with you more. I feel that Bush thinks of himself as royalty in some way. He has this smugness that really bothers me. He is stubborn, cocky, and not the brightest bulb in the pack. I think he is a liar. I can honestly say that I don't hate the man, but I don't think he is a good leader. I'd rather give John Kerry the opportunity to see what he can do than to have George Bush as president again.
I said this once before. George's father was a better president in my opinion the George, Jr. If George, Sr. couldn't be re-elected, why give his son another chance. We need some change in the direction of this country. George is spending us to death. How about that? A pseudo economic conservative has pulled the wool over many American's eyes. How he gets away with it, I do not know. Although he is not too bright, he is crafty, isn't he?
You know what galls me more than anything? The fact that 9/11 occurred on his watch. Our great protector. His administration was warned in advance of something that may happen in the near future and they did not act on it. That could very well be the reason why it happened. And for him to now try to appear as the "Great Protector" is so vexing. He is not protecting us. He is leading us down a questionable path and has done so through deceit. In the mean time, our young women and men pay the price with their lives. If protecting us was so important, then why hasn't anything been done to secure our borders better. Why hasn't anything been done to secure our ports? There is so much coming into our country that is never inspected. I hope that whoever becomes president in the future starts taking our security at home more seriously. I actually feel sorry for Mr. Bush because 9/11 happened during his watch. That must be tough. But, I do believe that he was given the opportunity before it happened to possibly prevent it. The information that was given to his administration should have been acted on.
Posted by: JM at September 29, 2004 04:04 PM
I gave you my opinions of healthcare. Here are the President's proposals.
President Bush understands that rising costs can put health care coverage out of reach for many Americans. Health care costs are rising at the fastest rate in nearly a decade, imposing a burden on families and businesses. That is why the President’s health care policies:
Reduce the rise in health care costs for all Americans through measures such as limiting frivolous medical liability lawsuits and modernizing health care IT;
New health insurance deductions will make coverage more affordable to millions of Americans whose employers don't provide health benefits. The President's proposal will allow individuals who establish HSAs to deduct the premiums they pay for their low-premium, high-deductible health insurance policies. This new deduction will be available to taxpayers whether or not they itemize. It will reduce the net cost of these policies and encourage the use of HSAs for saving for health care needs and making wise, cost-effective health care choices.
Create new and more affordable coverage options – targeted to those who need help the most: low-income children and families; employees of small businesses; and the self-employed; and
Give patients and doctors – not government bureaucrats – more control over health care decisions. The President’s plan uses consumer-driven health care and competition in the private marketplace to lower costs – not a federal government take-over of health care which will increase costs and pass them on to the taxpayers.
The President's Agenda to Reduce Costs and Help More Americans Afford High-Quality Health Care:
New tax-free Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to help more Americans gain affordable coverage . The President signed legislation creating HSAs, which will help individuals and businesses save a substantial amount on health insurance premiums and gain more control over their health care spending. Americans who set up HSAs along with the purchase of a low-cost, high-deductible health care plan can use tax-free money to pay for routine medical expenses, while gaining protection against major medical expenses. The President's proposal also allows individuals who establish HSAs to deduct the premiums they pay for their high-deductible policies, thus reducing the net cost of those policies. New data suggests that 30-40% of individuals enrolling in HSAs were previously uninsured.
Refundable tax credits to help low-income Americans buy health insurance. The President has proposed refundable tax credits of up to $3,000 for families and $1,000 for individuals to help low-income workers buy health insurance coverage. If approved by Congress, this proposal would provide coverage for an estimated 4-5 million Americans.
Association Health Plans (AHPs) to help small businesses provide coverage for their workers . Small businesses often cannot afford employee health benefits. The President has supported allowing small businesses to band together and negotiate lower health care premiums for their workers and families – just like bigger businesses and unions do. This will give America 's working families greater access to health insurance.
Millions of low-income Americans made eligible for coverage. Since January 2001, the Department of Health and Human Services has granted state waivers and approved state plan amendments that, when fully implemented, will help states extend coverage to an estimated 2.6 million low-income Americans eligible under Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
Greater access to health care for the most vulnerable through Community Health Centers. The President proposed a five-year plan to fund 1,200 new and expanded health center sites to serve an additional 6.1 million people by 2006. Today, he is well on the way to meeting that goal, with more than 600 new or expanded health centers delivering care to 3 million additional Americans, including many uninsured and low-income children and families in medically underserved communities.
Medical liability reform to help rein in unnecessary health care costs. Too many lawsuits without merit are being filed against doctors and hospitals, forcing them to practice defensive medicine, driving good doctors out of practice, and driving up health care costs for everyone. The President believes people who have a legitimate claim must have their day in court. But to make health care more affordable and accessible to everyone, we must reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits and limit excessive jury awards. No patient has ever been healed by a frivolous lawsuit.
Health IT initiative to reduce errors, cut waste, and lower costs. The President launched an initiative to make electronic medical records universally available for Americans in the next ten years. To improve quality of care, reduce medical errors, and reduce costs, the President's plan includes establishing a high-level office to coordinate government and private sector activities on health IT, adopting uniform standards to allow medical information to be shared and stored electronically. His plan also doubles the funding to support communities and States that are adopting health IT systems to improve the delivery of health care.
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 29, 2004 04:10 PM
Did anyone notice besides me that Barbra Bush (very nice lady) looks identical to former President George Washington. LOL! Hey, Republicans don't get mad at me. She probably takes pride in looking like our first U.S. President.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards
Posted by: d. jones at September 29, 2004 01:00 AM
Have you noticed Teresa Heinz Kerry looks like Tootsie?
I will be away until Sunday, play nice till I get back.
Posted by: Wayne at September 29, 2004 04:27 PM
JM,
You may have not noticed but, Prescot Bush is not running for any office. It is George W. Bush that is on the ticket.
This is the reason I think you and d.jones are the same person. You are both stupid.
Posted by: Wayne at September 29, 2004 05:09 PM
JM,
You have no proof that Prescott knew they were Nazis and we do have proof that Kerry met with the Viet Cong during war time and enabled the enemy by trashing our armed forces after he got back, which was used to torture our boys.
That being said, Bush is up with all of the attacks on him, why is that?
Posted by: Chris, OH at September 29, 2004 06:49 PM
JM,
Going without insurance. The kids without health insurance, I wonder how many of those families have 2 cars sitting in the driveway, a satellite dish, spend a couple of hundred dollars on cigs, beer or even drugs, how many of the parents made poor choices and decided to leave their spouses for greener pastures or married the person they thought had potential. Those statistics are meaningless. I want to help people I know want to help themselves. Government programs are not discerning which is why you cannot through our hard earned tax money at the problem.
Yes the kids are innocent and deserve better but the parents need to be held accountable.
I have friends that are deserving, good hard working people who are eligible and get help. Like I said those statistics are meaningless.
Posted by: Chris, OH at September 29, 2004 06:58 PM
WILL JUMP ON EVERY MIS-SPEAK OF G.W. BUSH AND TRY TO MAKE HIM OUT TO BE AN IDIOT.
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at September 29, 2004 03:42 AM
Bruce,
Bush made himself appear as an idiot, by stubborness, and self righteousness. When are you Republicans going to stop making Bush out to be some type of American hero! In order to get respect, you must first give respect. You can't simply blow every American off as being ignorant except yourself.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at September 29, 2004 08:15 PM
JM,
Could you please sight your reference to the alleged case you posted September 29, 2004 11:27AM? Let the rest of us research this.
Thanks
Posted by: Robert at September 29, 2004 08:37 PM
To my fellow bloggers: This was on Yahoo News this evening. I think that it is very telling.
-------------------------------------------------
Son of GOP President Supports Kerry
TRAPPE, Md. - John Eisenhower, son of Republican President Eisenhower, said in a newspaper column this week that he will vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) for president on Nov. 2.
In a rare public announcement, Eisenhower said he switched his party affiliation from Republican to independent after 50 years after losing confidence in his former party. He said Kerry has demonstrated courage, competence and a concern for tackling the "widening socio-economic gap in this country."
"There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them," Eisenhower wrote in the opinion column published Tuesday in The Union Leader of Manchester, N.H.
The column assails President Bush (news - web sites) and the GOP for federal budget deficits, for "unilaterally" invading Iraq (news - web sites) and for infringing on personal liberties.
The Bush campaign had no immediate comment.
Eisenhower, 82, declined to be interviewed Wednesday. His wife, Joanne Eisenhower, said by telephone from their home on Maryland's Eastern Shore that, "This is something he felt strongly about."
"The fact is that today's 'Republican' Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word 'Republican' has always been synonymous with the word 'responsibility,' which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms.
"Today's whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion," Eisenhower wrote.
Eisenhower, a former U.S. ambassador to Belgium and author, was a registered Republican for 50 years ? until the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq "as a maverick," he wrote.
"Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance," he wrote.
Eisenhower scolded the Republican leadership for embracing a tax code that "heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor."
"Senator Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country," he concluded.
Posted by: JM at September 29, 2004 09:38 PM
Robert,
I had heard of this previously (I don't remember exactly when or how), so I decided to check it out on the web. I took that little piece from this site: http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm
There are other sites that you can refer to about this story.
Posted by: JM at September 29, 2004 09:43 PM
Better yet Chris, I wonder how many of those kids and their families have nothing at all? Don't stereotype poor people. Different areas of the country have different social problems that include high unemployment due to a changing economy, etc. For every few that take advantage of government benefits, there are many who truly deserve the help. I would rather spend my tax money on the people within this country than some foreign country any day.
Posted by: JM at September 29, 2004 09:50 PM
Dave:
You would probably be the first person to run to a "scum" lawyer if you felt that he or she could help you in some way. Maybe it is the people who go to these lawyers who should be to blame (if their lawsuits are fake). Personally, if I ever needed legal help, I would want a good lawyer on my side. I would also not want to be limited by some arbitrary awards ceiling. If a company deserves to be sued, then so be it. Why should the company be inoculated from a lawsuit if they have caused harm to someone through negligence, etc?
Posted by: JM at September 29, 2004 09:59 PM
Chris:
You are certainly an ideologue. What about accountability when it comes to big business screwing the working class or middle class? I guess that is 'ok'. I am a moderate Democrat who believes in welfare reform. Money needs to be spent wisely. I don't think that shows a lack of accountability. Your man is now spending over $ 200 billion dollars just on the war in Iraq. This guy is so fiscally irresponsible! I hope George loses the election before he has the opportunity to totally destroy our economy.
Accountability>>> Does George Bush take accountability when it comes to making mistakes in Iraq? Hardly.
Posted by: JM at September 29, 2004 10:07 PM
Peace + love:
You had a powerful post there. The only thing I would have dropped was the profanity. It just gives them an excuse to disregard everything else that you posted. My goodness... you swore!! Like if they never have!
Honestly, though, you should not have used the "F" word. Their are many people who are sensitive to it (although they have probably used the word themselves!). Keep writing on this blog. I like your spunk.
Posted by: JM at September 29, 2004 10:18 PM
Kathy:
I know that Prescott Bush is not George Bush. I was just trying to indicate that the things that happened so many years ago do not always indicate how someone is today. People grow with age (usually). We all learn from our past experiences.
Posted by: JM at September 29, 2004 10:21 PM
Wayne:
You are about as smart as the pimple on Chris' butt.
Posted by: JM at September 29, 2004 10:22 PM
wpnsgy:
That's right, the election is about the future. So stop bringing up the distant past, nitwit.
Posted by: JM at September 29, 2004 10:27 PM
You can't simply blow every American off as being ignorant except yourself.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at September 29, 2004 08:15 PM
Did you actually say that? haha
Posted by: Conservatism at September 29, 2004 10:44 PM
Did you actually say that? haha
Posted by: Conservatism at September 29, 2004 10:44 PM
Get your head out of sewer Conservatism, you know what I meant. LOL!
Another very important factor to the election is the overseas vote.
Nevada's most populous county, Clark, started sending out absentee ballots to 3,250 overseas voters on Monday. In its second-most populous county, Washoe, some 1,000 overseas ballot requests aren't yet back from the printer, but officials hope to have them in the mail next week.
The U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, has distributed 3,000 voter registration applications this year, compared to 900 last time. In Italy, where some 169,000 Americans live, the U.S. consulate in Rome reports an overwhelming demand for registration forms. The Washington-based Democrats Abroad had 30 overseas chapters in 2000 and now has a presence in 73 countries, including an Iraq chapter called "Donkeys in the Desert."
With its 492,000 overseas troops in mind, the Pentagon improved its Web site for absentee voters and promised faster mail service as part of efforts to avert a repeat of the balloting problems four years ago. The Defense Department plan also included TV and radio announcements and banners in commissaries and classrooms.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at September 29, 2004 11:32 PM
Peace+Love. Change your name. You are anything but. How do you know If I served my country or if I'm serving my country right now. You don't! Yet you lash out with wild accussations like all of the other Kerry supporters. It proves one thing. You can spout the rhetoric with the best of them. You don't know anything about anyone in these blogs personally, but every one of the Kerry supporters makes personal attacks because you belive you can convert someone by silencing them.
Debate isn't about insulting one another. It's not about telling somebody else they are stupid. I asked you if you read the reports, I'm willing to take your word for it and I'm willing to allow you to have your own opinion. I'm not demanding that you agree with me but I will not debate with a person who stoops to the standards of most of these debates. You believe what you believe, that's part of your believe system. I don't understand how you belive what you believe or why you interpret things the way you do anymore than you can understand why I see things the way I do.
If you can't debate in reason, don't debate. You appeal to your base but you turn off those who are still deciding. I've always been taught that if you have to shout to make your point, you don't really have one. I've seen a lot of that in these blogs.
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 29, 2004 11:42 PM
I will be away until Sunday, play nice till I get back.
Posted by: Wayne at September 29, 2004 04:27 PM
Well, I guess Wayne got that ticket to Iraq I sent him.. He won't be coming back. Trust me.
Bush Tours Fla., Kerry Faults Bush on Oil
Bush said that Iraqi oil "would pay for the war, but we know that those oil pipes are being blown up," Kerry said. "We know that $50 a barrel isn't as bad as it might get because analysts are now telling us that the price may go up to $60."
Crude oil surpassed $50 a barrel for the first time this week, and analysts said prices could keep rising because of a rise in global demand, tight supplies and threats to output in petroleum-producing nations such as Iraq and Nigeria.
This is going to get good! GW JR has nearly spent all of America's money, where is he going to get $12 billion??
The president pressed Congress to quickly approve his latest request for emergency funding. On Monday, Bush had asked for more than $7.1 billion to help Florida and other Southeastern states recover from the storms. It was his third request for supplemental storm aid, which all together would total more than $12 billion if lawmakers approve.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at September 30, 2004 12:14 AM
JM
IT'S OK FOR PRESIDENT EISINHOWER SON TO VOTE FOR A DEMOCRATE, BUT TOTALLY WRONG FOR ZELL MILLER TO SUPPORT PRESIDENT BUSH. YOU CAN CHERRY PICK YOUR SUPPORTERS TO MAKE PEOPLE BELIEVE REPUBLICANS ARE NOT SUPPORTING PRESIDENT BUSH. ZELL MILLER IS NOT REPRESENTITIVE OF DEMOCRATES, MOST REPUBLICANS WILL FOR REPUBLICAN AND MOST DEMOCRATES WILL FOR FOR DEMOCRATES. SO MAKE A BETTER ARGUMENT THIS ONE WILL NOT WORK. BOTH EXAMPLES DON'T REPRESENT A LARGE SEGMENTS OF THE POPULATION. PROTECT THIS COUNTRY VOTE FOR A LEADER NOT A FLIP FLOPPER. VOTE BUSH/CHENEY O4
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at September 30, 2004 03:27 AM
Bloggers: This article was taken from the DenverPost website. This is the way that I have felt for soooo many months. I respect these Republican Congressman for speaking the truth that the people on the blog do not want to hear.
=================================================
Nebraska GOP red has shade of anger
By John Aloysius Farrell
Denver Post Washington Bureau Chief
Washington - When it comes to presidential politics, there is no more reliably Republican state than Nebraska. In the course of the past 50 years, it has edged out Indiana, Mississippi - even Utah - as the deepest swath of red of all.
The emerging streak of anti-war sentiment in the Nebraska delegation to Congress, therefore, is downright noteworthy.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., seethed last week as he cross-examined administration witnesses at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
Hagel, a decorated U.S. Army veteran who served in Vietnam, said he is deeply skeptical about the claims of progress that President Bush and his advisers have made about Iraq. The Nebraskan compared "this mess" to the U.S. failures in Vietnam.
"We are in deep trouble," he warned.
Hagel chided "all these smart guys who got us in there (to Iraq) ... all the smart guys who said how easy this was going to be and who reassured us not to worry."
The topic of the hearing was a package of $87 billion that Congress approved for Iraq last fall. Sen. John Kerry voted against it, and Bush often cites that vote when arguing that Kerry can't be trusted to keep the U.S. safe.
But while the Pentagon and its contractors have run through their share of the $87 billion, the administration has failed to spend much of the $18.4 billion earmarked for rebuilding Iraq's economy.
Sen. Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana - another dependably red state - chaired the hearing.
"Of the $18.4 billion the Congress appropriated for Iraq more than 10 months ago, only $1.1 billion has been disbursed," Lugar said. "This is an extraordinary, ineffective administrative procedure. It is exasperating."
As conditions in Iraq deteriorate, the administration now wants to shift $2 billion of the unspent money to pay for military and security costs.
Lugar chastised the "blithely optimistic people ... the
dancing-in-the-street crowd" in the Bush administration who assured Congress that casualties and costs would be low and that U.S. troops would be met as liberators.
"Now," said Lugar, "the nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent."
Lugar read aloud from a letter he received from a Marine second lieutenant serving in Iraq.
"My guys never fail to step up to any challenge," the lieutenant wrote. But "this war is one that cannot be won by Marines and soldiers. The only thing we can do is to keep a lid on it and buy time. We chase the mujahedeen around and, in doing so, catch and kill a few.
"In a society with no jobs, a faltering economy and little or no infrastructure, there is plenty of incentive to fight," the lieutenant wrote. "The incentive needs to be removed."
Hagel joined Lugar and the panel's Democrats in endorsing the lieutenant's sentiments.
"The military is not going to ultimately win Iraq," said Hagel, who then drew on a phrase from the Vietnam War. "You don't win the hearts and minds of the people at the end of a barrel of a gun.
"This is how we get ourselves into trouble: when we delude ourselves," said Hagel, referring to administration assurances that great progress has been made. "Of $4.2 billion designated for water and sanitation, $16 million has been spent; ... of $786 million earmarked for health, $2 million has been spent. It's beyond pitiful. It's beyond embarrassing. It is now in the zone of dangerous."
The Senate hearing came midway through a month in which, after a summer of political fancies, the reality of war has returned with a vengeance to the nation's capital.
August was among the costliest months of the war, and the pace of casualties has accelerated in September. The White House admits that a gloomy CIA intelligence estimate warns that Iraq may collapse into civil war. The Pentagon acknowledges there are now swaths of Iraq under the control of terrorists and insurgents.
Before he retired Aug. 31, Republican Rep. Doug Bereuter, who represented eastern Nebraska for 13 terms in Congress, sent an extraordinary letter to his constituents.
The prewar reports of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction represent a "massive intelligence failure," Bereuter wrote. And "the inability of the administration to clearly establish a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam (Hussein), despite the intimations of various administration leaders like Vice President Dick Cheney, is no surprise."
The war is "a mistake," Bereuter wrote. "The cost in casualties is already large and growing, and the immediate and long-term financial costs are incredible."
There is little chance the president will lose Nebraska's five Electoral College votes this fall.
But if Bush can't convince Nebraska Republicans that he's fighting the right war against terror, how will he fare in battleground states?
It may be a sign his Iraq policy, and his re-election hopes, are indeed in deep trouble.
Posted by: JM at September 30, 2004 08:21 AM
Jim Rodkey:
With all due respect, please get off your high horse. You only see things in one direction and fail to chastise people who do the same thing on your side. I know that you create some intelligent posts, but I would respect them more if you were a more independent thinker. I have yet to read anything from you that I feel is actually coming from a non-partisan point of view. That is why I take your posts with a grain of salt like most of the others from the right.
I, for one, will have some fun on this blog because it can be a bit disheartening when you feel like your posting for a bunch of close-minded people. You will know when my post is more "fun" than serious... at least I hope you do. I know that it may be difficult because you don't know me. I don't mean to insult anyone on this site, but I will answer in kind if I think it is appropriate to do so. Some people are obviously used to bullying, and I will not be bullied. I find it kind of interesting that both d.jones and myself have indicated some conservative views that we actually support, but the conservatives on this blog have not shown any inclination to step beyond their conservative posts to indicate if they actually have more moderate views. Some people may refer to that as "conviction". I think it is being a bit chauvinist and close-minded. I like the idea of compromise, but to many on the right, it doesn't appear to be an option. It is win and take all. Unfortunately, that attitude will only turn off a majority of the people in this country who do believe in a working dialogue with everyone, not just the political group that they support. This is one of the major problems with George Bush. He has little inclination to compromise with anyone who has another opinion. People in his own administration who have disagreed with him have been bullied and blacklisted. This is not an all or nothing world that we live in. Compromise is not a weakness, but a strength. The real weakness is stubborness.
Posted by: JM at September 30, 2004 08:41 AM
JM,
I ALSO would rather spend my tax money on the people within this country than some foreign country any day, but I unlike you I don't want the government doing it. I would rather donate to the causes I see work. I did not steryotype poor people you see I came from a poor background, I simply stated that there are some irresposible people and we as a country need to be more discerning. I want to remind you that the last four years have been taxing on our economy and it has nothing to do with our President. He needs to pay for a war that we did not start. He also tried to appease some libs with programs that I do not agree with. He tried. Just like we tried with the U.N. and just like the U.N. you guys refuse to give him credit for reaching out and continue to criticize him for that which you disagree.
I am a small businessman and I understand the need to appease some big businesses as well ie: Heinz who receives the same breaks to send jobs overseas. Hypocrytical? Yes, again I will state we all are somewhat hypocritical it in our nature however ideology ie: convictions trump intentions.
Now that is a well thought out debate, I hope that they do the same this evening. Agreed?
Posted by: Chris, OH at September 30, 2004 11:27 AM
JM
IT'S NO SURPRIZE TO ME THAT REPUBLICANS SOME TIME DIFFER WITH IT'S LEADERS ON ONE THING OR THE OTHER. I UNDERSTAND WHY IT WOULD SURPRIZE DEMOCRATES. ALL ONE HAS TO DO IS LISTEN TO THE SUNDAY TALK SHOWS. DEMOCRATES WILL TALK ABOUT THE SAME ISSUE, USING THE SAME WORDS, IN LOCK STEP WITH THEIR LEADERS. REPUBLICANS NORMALLY WILL SUPPORT PRESIDENT BUSH, BUT WE ARE NOT MIND NUMB ROBOTS.
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at September 30, 2004 01:37 PM
JM,
No I wouldn't. I had a chance the other day, my wife fell in wal-mart and hurt her knee and arm, not badly but if I were one of those kinds of people, I would have found an Edward-esk lawyer and sued the hell out of wal-mart. I don't think just because you slip and fall you should sue! Those types of people make me sick!
Bush by 75 ECV's
Posted by: David Lowery at September 30, 2004 01:59 PM
JM
Thanks for the post. It was reasonable and challenging. I mostly post from a point of personal perspective and I admit I have a conservative Bias. I would like to see things in the world from a conservative viewpoint nad sometimes think that others don't understant. Conservatism isn't about being unwilling to change, it's a reluctance to change overnight. We would rather move forward slowly and cautiously making certain the waters are safe before we just jump in for a total change. I can understand that you feel that geroge Bush is stubborn, I see it, however, as being resolute.
Before making a final decision on the "No child Left behind policy" the President gathered educators from all arena's, elementary through high school and college professors. He then picked their minds and allowed them to help him form his decision. Once he arrived at the decision he has held fast to that position. I believe there is evidence of this in other policy areas. While he is certainly conservative, he has had moderate policy positions that has angered many hardline conservative Republicans and attracted the support of moderate democrats. That can be evidenced in the polls.
If you've read my other posts you know that I'm not 100% behind George Bush. If there was somebody better running for the office, I'd consider them. I really liked Gebhard and Lieberman. When I first started listening to Edwards, I liked him a lot. I was willing to Give John Kerry a chance but I still don't really know where he stands on issues. I've been to his web site, I've read what he's posted there and then I listen to him on the campaign trail and I hear a mixed message. I've filtered in the issue of politics and understand that it's necessary to speak to the concerns of your audience but he has taken opposing views that argue with his earlier statements. To an Arab audience he referred to the wall in Israel as an offense and then to a Jewish audience he called it necessary. I'm also uncomfortable with his voting record in the Senate.
I know this is speaking from my own bias, but I still feel that many people who are casting their vote for John Kerry are doing it without really understanding what he believes, they just don't want George Bush. It doesn't seem to occur to them that he could do far worse. Clinging to dreams of the Clinton era is as foolish as Republicans saying the Bush is the next Reagan. He's not, but John Kerry is no Bill Clinton. Both candidates have lied to us on their positions and both candidates have lied to us about their opponents. Both candidates are in a campaign of smear, that's all part of politics. In the end, we have to filter through all of the rhetoric and the bias from both sides in the news media and try to make an informed choice.
In trying to figure out where Kerry stands on the economic issues, I see him leaning towards the Jimmy Carter policies, I see the same thing with his foreign policies. I though Jimmy Carter was one of the worst presidents in this century. If Kerry were closer to Clinton, I'd be happier but he's not in my opinion.
As the election draws closer, there is an urgency from both sides. You asked me to come down off my high horse. That criticism is noted. I get angry at the baseless attacks. We get enough of that on the 24 hour news channels. I don't like when the Bush supporters do it and I don't like when the Kerry supporters do it. I am frustrated that the debate has turned into all of us trying to prove we are right. My personally feeling is that the most important issue in this election will be how we handle the war in Iraq. Wwe are there and we can't change that, or at least we shouldn't. We need to finish the job because our future economy and reputation depends on what we do and how we do it. I don't see Kerry as the man for that job. I'll watch the debate tonight and pray that George Bush doesn't screw up because we all know that it's a distinct possibility. A bushism tonight will be deadly. John Kerry has to prove himself tonight if he wants to win this election and I don't see how that is possible because of his varied positions.
Call it my high horse and called me stubborn. I know I've made my choice and I admit that I don't see anyway that Kerry can possible persuade me to feel otherwise. But let me ask you the same thing. Aren't you on the same horse and just as stubborn? Perhaps not as ridiculously stubborn as D. Jones, but aren't you already just as persuaded and don't you also only want to sing the praises of your candidate.
Debate is healthy for this country and I recognize the need for voices on all sides to be heard. I belive that when you speak, you should do so with conviction, but before you speak, make darned sure you have enough correct information to back up your claims.
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 30, 2004 04:29 PM
JM
re: Battle ground stats, President Bush is doing just fine in that area. JM people will vote for a leader in a time like this. Remember 911, musilm extreamest want us dead, conservitives and liberals. No, we can not stick our heads in the sand, and if we do we will get our butts shot off. There is only one leader in this years election and that is G. W. Bush. Check the record on this statement. It is my opinion but it is an informed opinion. VOTE FOR A PROVEN LEADER VOTE FOR PRESIDENT BUSH.
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at September 30, 2004 05:26 PM
Kerry Wins Debate #1!
Kerry set the record straight tonight in front of the country. Bush was on the defensive the whole time, and was unable to explain away his mistakes. John Kerry held Bush's feet to the fire over Iraq, and the lack of planning as well as the lapse of judgement in rushing to war. Maybe the media will let go of the charade as well, I can only hope... but until that day comes, I am voting for John Kerry. He was proven himself more than worthy of leading this country into a brighter future. And we haven't even gotten to the economy yet :)
Viva John Kerry!
John Kerry wins this debate hands down.
Posted by: Peace + Love at September 30, 2004 10:58 PM
My God. Kerry mopped the foor with Bush tonight. I almost felt bad for the poor stuttering fool, then I realized it was George Bush.
This was probably the most one sided debate I have seen in my life. Even the GOP polls have Kerry with 70% of the respondents saying he won. Funny to see Fox News pulled their poll tonight.
Posted by: Paul at September 30, 2004 11:48 PM
Crawford, Texas Paper ENDORSES KERRY
by Maryscott OConnor
Tue Sep 28th, 2004 at 19:47:46 GMT
(Since the diaries are temporarily off the front page, here's a good one for you -- kos)
As found on the Kerry/Edwards Blog:
The Lone Star Iconoclast, the Crawford, Texas newspaper that endorsed Bush in 2000 -- has endorsed JOHN KERRY for President.
The Iconoclast is edited by Leon Smith, who edited the Clifton Record in 2000, which also endorsed Bush in 2000.
Within the endorsement of John Kerry, the Iconoclast launches a scathing assessment of George W. Bush and his "Presidency."
Excerpts below:
(italics and bold highlights my own)
Diaries :: Maryscott OConnor's diary ::
Kerry Will Restore American Dignity
2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement
Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:
Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.
Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans' benefits and military pay.
Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.
Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.
Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.
Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and
Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.
These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took office.
The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.
Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.
In those dark hours after the World Trade Center attacks, Americans rallied together with a new sense of patriotism. We were ready to follow Bush's lead through any travail.
He let us down.
When he finally emerged from his hide-outs on remote military bases well after the first crucial hours following the attack, he gave sound-bytes instead of solutions.
Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction trained on America. We believed him, just as we believed it when he reported that Iraq was the heart of terrorism. We trusted him.
The Iconoclast, the President's hometown newspaper, took Bush on his word and editorialized in favor of the invasion. The newspaper's publisher promoted Bush and the invasion of Iraq to Londoners in a BBC interview during the time that the administration was wooing the support of Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Again, he let us down.
Once and for all, George Bush was President of the United States on that day. No one else. He had been President nine months, he had been officially warned of just such an attack a full month before it happened. As President, ultimately he and only he was responsible for our failure to avert those attacks.
We should expect that a sitting President would vacation less, if at all, and instead tend to the business of running the country, especially if he is, as he likes to boast, a "wartime president." America is in service 365 days a year. We don't need a part-time President who does not show up for duty as Commander-In-Chief until he is forced to, and who is in a constant state of blameless denial when things don't get done.
Kerry's four-point plan for Iraq is realistic, wise, strong, and correct. With the help from our European and Middle Eastern allies, his plan is to train Iraqi security forces, involve Iraqis in their rebuilding and constitution-writing processes, forgive Iraq's multi-billion dollar debts, and convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq's internal affairs.
The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.
John Kerry has 30 years of experience looking out for the American people and can navigate our country back to prosperity and re-instill in America the dignity she so craves and deserves. He has served us well as a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and has had a successful career as a district attorney, lieutenant governor, and senator.
Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence, good sense, and guts to make it happen.
That's why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country.
The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry.
Now THAT'S an endorsement.
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 1, 2004 12:52 AM
Peace&love and Paul - If some one wins with lies - Are The really a winner?? - Bush won the debate with the truth
PS - Liberals are usually neither full of Peace or Love - you should rename yourself Hate&Lies
Posted by: N.C. voter at October 1, 2004 01:01 AM
I will give you that Kerry came off much smoother and I say He won but he did not outline anything other than say he had a plan and would do better. A slick talker but needs more
Posted by: wpnsgy at October 1, 2004 01:18 AM
Give me a break, Kerry did not win anything. He is a stuffed shirt, and wrong on the important issues. President Bush is the right leader at the right time and I for one am happy he was the president on 911, and happy the American people will give him another 4 years. We know J.F.K. can not lead we know he thinks more of the U.N. than the U.S.A. We must win the war on terror and the idea a debate makes a leader is nonsence. You win a political debate by being right on the issues and Kerry is the wrong man at the wrong time with the wrong ideas. Bush won the debate by being right on all of these issues. Vote for President Bush. Defend this country for future generations.
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at October 1, 2004 01:26 AM
GW JR is still picking his face up after the debate bashing. I am not here gloating. I was really suprised to see Senator Kerry lash Bush so harshly, but it needed to be done. This was GW JR's first step out of a controlled environment filled with Republicans and into the real world. Like a small child being scolded, Senator Kerry repeatedly critized Bush for his past decision on the Iraq War.....
Kerry Won Debate According to Three Instant Polls of Viewers
Oct. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic challenger John Kerry performed better than President George W. Bush in the first presidential debate according to instant polls done by Gallup, ABC News and CBS News.
Fifty-three percent of the 613 registered voters who watched the debate said Kerry did better, according to a poll by Gallup for CNN and USA Today. Thirty-seven percent said Bush did the best job. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
The 90-minute debate at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida, was the first of three scheduled meetings between the two candidates. Kerry said Bush's decision to invade Iraq diverted attention ``from the real war on terror.'' Bush countered that Kerry is sending mixed messages to the world after voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
A poll by ABC found that 45 percent of 531 registered voters surveyed who watched the debates said Kerry did a better job, 36 percent said Bush did better and 17 percent said they tied.
CBS's survey found that 43 percent of 200 uncommitted voters who watched said Kerry won, 28 percent said Bush was the winner and 29 percent said they tied. CBS said the survey was among voters who indicated they are undecided or who said they have a preference and might change their mind. The margin of error is plus or minus 7 percentage points, CBS said.
Forty-six percent of those polled by the Washington-based Gallup organization said they had a more favorable opinion of Kerry after the debate compared with 21 percent for Bush. Sixty percent said Kerry expressed himself more clearly than Bush, while 48 percent said Bush was more likeable.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 1, 2004 03:23 AM
Posted by: JM at September 29, 2004 04:04 PM
djones: I never thought you were extremely liberal. I did think though, that you had firsthand experience about Mr. Mediocrity when he was governor of Texas. How he ever managed that feat, I am not sure.
JM,
I finally got a chance to read your post thoroughly. You have a very good head on your shoulders. In my opinion, Ann Richards was one of the greatest Texas Governors. Among many other things, she brought the Lottery to Texas. If there is anything I have noticed about the variety of posts on this blog it's the ability to blindly follow Bush that many have. They really don't know anything about this man. Most are following the Republican party, as they claim anyone supporting Kerry is following the Democratic party. I have never followed party's, but if my supporting Kerry makes me a Democrat in their minds then so be it. We don't have the luxury of embracing the ideals of all candidates in this election. Bush made this election very personal, by testing American intelligence to the fullest extent. His goal of separating the saints from the sinners backfired on him, because he really doesn't posess the powers of God. The only reason Bush was elected as Texas Governor and President is his last name "Bush". He has no special powers nor a direct telephone line to Jesus. What more does Bush have to do to prove to America that he really doesn't know what he is doing. These people honestly refuse to believe that Bush doesn't care about America, and that he came into office with a personal agenda. I am trying to type this without insults to Bush, and it's very hard. Republicans keep saying that I have a "anyone but Bush as President mentality". They seem to forget that if Bush wasn't in office I wouldn't be complaining at all. For heavans sake, Bush cheated his way to the White House on National TV in 2000. He honestly believes he is doing the right thing, because he doesn't know any better. Should I embrace him for that... simply because he is a Texan and his last name is Bush. NO! I could probably digest his Presidency more if the election would have been clean. I am finding out more and more on how simple it is to rig a Presidential election, a subject never entered more into any Presidency. Bush really thought this job would be a cake walk, that's the way his life was handed to him. Bush tries to present himself as down to earth. The truth is, he is not down to earth at all. He is so stupid that it appears that he is down to earth. If Bush didn't at least try and follow the simple rules of his priviledged life by attending College, War Service, etc. He would have no respect from his Family. I don't know everything about the Bush family; however, I know more than I care to at this point. I know enough to understand he is a horrible American, and a worse President. I may go to extremes to get my point across, or to even get the attention and understanding of one of the Bush lovers in America. If there is anything taken from my posts on this site, I hope it is the ability to freely express how you feel about our Country. We as Americans seem to have completely forgotten about rights and freedoms. The Eagle has turned into a black buzzard preying on anything dead or half dead.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004 Take America Back!
Posted by: d. jones at October 1, 2004 07:05 AM
Things are not always as they appear. Kerry publicly downed the contributions of our allies. Bush was smart not to bring up that France and Germany will not help us because they were in bed with Saddam, but I can say it. I also have one more questions? Did John Kerry say that our men and women are fighting for a lost cause or not? I think he said both.
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 1, 2004 09:49 AM
Bruce I agree with you but Kerry won the debate as a smooth talker he did not really explain his position other than he would do better. I was disapointed Kerry opened himself up on many of his votes in the Senate and Bush did not hit him on it. Like he wants a better Intelligence when he voted to gut the CIA ect so bad Ted Kennedy wouldnt support it. If he favors a stronger military where is the proof in his record while in the Senate. Why didnt Bush hit Kerry on all the missed intelligence hearings. I do not know why Bush did not take them but he did not. I was disapointed The election could well have been over this morning if Bush had hit Kerry on these and other votes that he has taken in the senate and exposing him as the empty shirt that he is. The result did not change my vote but I will give credit where do and Kerry won on style
Posted by: wpnsgy at October 1, 2004 09:54 AM
d jokes just when I thought you might be posting a truly thought out post you slip in cheated his way into the white house once again grow up He won the election it was Gore that was trying to cheat his way into the whitehouse and all the foul ups as well as the crying done by the Democrats. GET OVER IT it is done you lost!!!! Your Guy did well last night I do not believe he changed many minds he needs to say more than I will do better.
Posted by: wpnsgy at October 1, 2004 10:00 AM
Why cant Republicans just admit like 70% of the country that Bush got a good old fashioned licking last night! MSNBS live vote had 1 million 600 thousand votes and 63 % said he got wooped!
Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at October 1, 2004 10:29 AM
Kerry stood taller, talked better, looked better, and was right on point!
SPIN SPIN SPIN is all the Republicans can do now to help reduce how much Georgy boy looked like a DOPE!
SADAM SADAM SADAM is that all he talks about?
Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at October 1, 2004 10:31 AM
Posted by: wpnsgy at October 1, 2004 09:54 AM
I am both confused and amazed at your postings. If I am reading things correctly, I see Bush supporters running the Country better than Bush himself. I whole heartedely agree with that, I feel some of these posters are better qualified than Bush for President simply because they can have the ability to see the truth... Kerry won the debate. Guaranteed if Bush saw it he would never admit to it, and stick by that decision. That's the same way he is running America. He is almost becoming predictable. Realistically, Bush gave the U.N. the middle finger on the Iraq issue and now wants them back at the table for Iran, North Korea, etc. Why is Bush willing to play the game with the U.N. at this time? Will the U.N. welcome the U.S. back to the table with open arms? Will there be any U.N. hard feelings forcing the U.S. to lose credibility during future negotiations? We once led the U.N. now we sit at the table and remain quiet. Can the Bush supporters on this site run American better than Bush himself??
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 1, 2004 10:44 AM
Dave:
I was involved in a car accident in 1992. I was hit from behind and ended up spending a good two weeks in bed afterwards. I had symptoms of whiplash and felt the effects of the accident for years. I NEVER sued. I think that you don't need to be Democrat or Republican on this issue. Lawyers exist to help people. Who else would help someone against a powerful adversary? I don't discredit lawyers. If I were to need help, then that is where I would go to get it. Most of our elected officials are lawyers. There is good and bad in everyone.
Posted by: JM at October 1, 2004 11:01 AM
I have to say that Mr. Bush came across as a stumbling ninny in the debate last night. Whenever I listen to him speak, he reminds me of a little boy. His "plain talk" IS really plain! It lacks intellectual depth and makes him appear childish at times. A big sorry to his supporters, but he should have presented himself much better, especially after being president for almost 4 years already. He has the opportunity to speak to his constituents all of the time. He shouldn't be stumbling over things that he is constantly involved with every day.
Posted by: JM at October 1, 2004 11:06 AM
To BRUCE E,
You quoted several polls stating that JK won the Debate last night, but the one you didn't quote is the one that I found most interesting. According to a Gallop poll conducted just after the debate finished a majority of the people stated that JK had won, but among swing voters (those undecided before the debate), George Bush actually came out on top, with (and I don't have the percentage so don't beat me down) more stating they had now decided to vote for Bush than Kerry.
I am still mad though that Michael Bednarik (and to a smaller extent Ralph Nader) have not been included in these debates. The Two Party system that we have devolved into is going to ruin our political process. Both the Democrats and Republicans have way to much power, and voting in a few Liberterians, Greens, or another third party candidate might help to dilute this. I realize that every third party is going to have beliefs of one the two major parties, but they would be more inclined to vote for what is right as opposed to the party line.
P.s
When did Democratic stop becoming a process and become a party? Last night JK was announced as the Democratic nomination and not the Democrat nomination. Just curious.
Vote Bednarik
Posted by: James at October 1, 2004 11:16 AM
I am a Bush supporter and first time poster to this site. So that is out of the way.
Bush did not do his best last night. He "lost" the debate from a purely debate perspective. He was playing sort of a prevent defense and bit his tongue a lot when he should have slammed Kerry on inaccurate statements regarding things like subways being closed when they were not, funding police, Iraq not being central to the war, the fact that we don't need the same force in Afghanistan as we do in Iraq so Irag is not a diversion, I could go on. But Bush didn't do that. He stuck to base messages too much.
Having said all of that, it doesn't change the fact that in 20 years in the Senate Kerry has done nothing but be wrong on foreign policy, wrong on domestic policy, wrong when he negotiated us and millions of Vietnamese into a losing position (illegally I might add) on Viet Nam, produced zero legislation (No Kerry developed and sponsored legislation has become law in 20 years!, not leadership just bad ideas).
It doesn't change the fact that we are safer (not safe yet, but safer) under Bush.
It doesn't change the fact that Bush has done a good job with the war on terror based on freeing two complete countries (Something Russia couldn't do in Afghanistan in a decade or more), having a third disarm and having learned more about how the enemy operates then ever in our history with them.
It doesn't change the fact that the economy has imporved paritally because of across the board tax cuts (don't give me the tax cuts for the rich thing. the data just doesn't support it and Bush should have slammed Kerry on that one also)
It doesn't change the fact that Bush did work with the UN, but working with them and being held hostage by them are different things. Kerry would be a hostage to them. Bush spent months working with them and the US spent over a decade letting "diplomacy" and inspections happen. And if you still think there is no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda you missed the slaughtered civilians killed by a Jordanian born Al Qaeda member and the fact that he was already in Iraq many times before the war.
It doesn't change the fact that Kerry has no plan for Iraq. A summit? Your kidding. Hey France would you mind sending your troops to the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time so I can bring our folks home? Sure John, we'll do that. Even though never in our history with multi-national efforts have we been a majority force in any action. Nor has any country for that matter, even with the Coalition of George H.W. Bush in 91, so praised by Kerry, were we on equal levels of force as our allies. The US is always the majority force by large margins, because we are the most capable and well resourced. Don't forget history.
It doesn't change the fact that the dems have two pieces of polling data that I believe our accurate about Kerry winning the debate on style points. However, there is no other poll data taken from that same group that puts Kerry ahead of Bush on what matters - Our safety, his leadership, and who they are going to actually vote for.
Bush may have lost the debate, but he will not lose the election. Most Americans are able to seperate substance from style......
Posted by: JD at October 1, 2004 01:23 PM
James you have a very valid point But there needs to be a point where there is a cut off. I believe the cutoff should be where a party qualifies for enough state ballots that they can win the Presidency. If they meet that hurdle they should be heard.
Posted by: wpnsgy at October 1, 2004 05:33 PM
You would never guess by reading all these posting that GW is kicking tail on JK. Even though people are saying JK won last nite, they still are voting for GW. Tell me why they are still going to vote for GW if JK won the debate. All you liberals have to hang on to is that JK is great at lying. Maybe thats why the people are still voting for Bush. The lesser of two evils?
Posted by: splamann at October 1, 2004 06:50 PM
splamann,
I don't know why you're saying what you're saying, "Even though people are saying JK won last nite, they still are voting for GW." I keep hearing the opposite--that most "undecideds" are now going to vote for John Kerry.
Of course, I hear otherwise from the "pro-Bushites" but I sort of expected that. They, like George W. Bush, are habitual liars.
As a matter of fact, I have discovered that some of the pro-Bushites have become so used to their practice of lying that they're now having problems recognizing whether they're lying or telling the truth. Their practice of lying is really becoming a negative addiction for them. They really need to get some medical help.
Frankly, I don't think that it's possible for George W. Bush to recover either. He's going to try, of course, but he'll soon find out that even his lies won't be of the caliber or quality they used to be. His lies are simply not going to shine and sparkle like before.
Now, I'm going to do something nice for them--the pro-Bushites. I want them to finally recognize the truth about the debate last night. What happened last night is that John Kerry whipped George W. Bush good--I mean really good.
The George W. Bush and pro-Bushite problem will now be that the American people will now recognize them for what they represent: lies, lies, lies and more lies. That's what George W. Bush and his lying pro-Bushites can come to expect from now on. Any questions?
Your POST follows:
"You would never guess by reading all these posting that GW is kicking tail on JK. Even though people are saying JK won last nite, they still are voting for GW. Tell me why they are still going to vote for GW if JK won the debate. All you liberals have to hang on to is that JK is great at lying. Maybe thats why the people are still voting for Bush. The lesser of two evils?"
Posted by: splamann at October 1, 2004 06:50 PM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 1, 2004 09:07 PM
I know the man being discussed in this letter (below), Cele. He is an honest man, a Marine Viet Nam vet and true patriot. To learn more about Cele and his work to alert our fellow citizens to the truth about drugs, illegal and clandestine US operations, and major public figures, please see his well researched and documented book "Powderburns"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0889625786/104-7578473-7618352?v=glance
dave
***************************************************************************************************************************
Soldier of Fortune, Inc.
Attn: Editor Robert K. Brown
5735 Arapahoe Ave., Suite A-5
Boulder, CO 80303
Dear Mr. Brown:
My name is Matthew and I live in San Diego,
California. I have been a long time reader of your
magazine and I am also a recipient of some email
exchanges between yourself and Mr. Celerino Castillo
III.
Apparently, Mr. Castillo, a retired federal agent, has
responded to an anti-Kerry editorial which attacked
the presidential candidate for his Senate committee
investigations of Contra involement in drug
trafficking during the 1980's. The editorial in your
magazine was then followed by another piece by CIA
operative Felix Rodriguez which also attacked Kerry
for his investigation of government links to the drug
trade.
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/issues/2004-09-23/metro.html
I just wanted to write and let you know that as a
reader of your magazine, I was shocked to hear first
hand Mr. Castillo's experiences in Central America.
He is one of the few eyewitnesses to the real history
of Central America in the 1980's willing to speak
about his experiences. He is one of the few people in
a position to know this information.
First of all, let me explain that I actually met and
spoke with Mr. Castillo on more than one occasion. He
was in San Diego on the campus of San Diego State
University in November of 2000 giving a lecture on the
war on drugs. He later addressed the national
conference of MECHA, a hispanic student organization,
on the SDSU campus in April, 2001.
A professor of education at SDSU is organizing a
special collection at the university library. The
archive contains documents and photos of Castillo's
law enforcement career. His material is required
reading for Education Majors (All future teachers) who
want to earn a teaching credential at SDSU, thanks to
the same professor.
I want to let you know that I found Mr. Castillo to be
a very proud and patriotic man who did EVERYTHING that
his country asked him to do, without question. He is
modest and soft-spoken and truely a gentleman who
loves his country. He is the son of a WWII veteran
who was shot six times in the Phillipines by the
Japanese and earned a silver star for his actions in
the war.
During the Vietnam war, his father approached him and
said "Son, you gotta pay your dues, just like I did".
Although Mr. Castillo did not have to go to Vietnam,
he followed the wishes of his father and was drafted
into the war. (Unlike our current president and all of
the other priveleged people in our government) He
spent his time involved in covert operations where he
was a sniper assigned to kill North Vietnamese
officers. His experiences during the war lead him to
become a police officer and later a federal agent.
Some of the things he witnessed:
-Torture and murder with the knowledge or approval of
U.S. Intelligence agencies
-Rape and Murder with the knowledge of U.S. agencies
-Drug trafficking by U.S. Intelligence agencies.
-top government officials in the countries he was
assigned to work in (Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador)
were documented drug traffickers in DEA files.
-Pilots involved in the Contra movement were given
U.S. Visas despite being listed as drug traffickers in
government files. The same pilots bragged of using
their credentials to move dope.
-U.S. asset bragging that they had killed a Roman
Catholic archbishop, Oscar Romero. Being forced to
work with same.
-Purchased confiscated arms from Salvadoran military
while posing undercover as a member of a drug cartel.
Told by supervisors not to embarass the Salvadoran
government.
-Oliver North involved in drugs
-Escaped Terrorist Enrique Posada hired by Felix
Rodriguez and working for the Contra operation
In his speeches at SDSU, he would sadly tell the
audience that the things that made him the most proud
in life were his kids and his bronze star. He later
said that he had left his bronze star at the Vietnam
Memorial in protest of the things he had witnessed in
Latin America.
Mr. Castillo has paid a heavy personal price for his
honesty. Not only did he sacrifice a promising career
in law enforcement, he lost his wife and children to
divorce as a result.
I am writing to ask you to let Mr. Castillo have his
say. He backs his statements with file numbers,
documents and names of witnesses who also happen to be
government employees.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/hall/contra1.html
www.drugwar.com/castillo.shtm
This is a lot more than your anti-Kerry writer did.
It is a lot more than Felix Rodriguez did in his
article. In addition, several other retired federal
agents have come foward with similar allegations, (see
attachment) including Mike Levine, Mike Holm and
Hector Berrellez.
Let me challenge you, Mr. Brown. Your magazine states
that it is "pro-law enforcement". By your actions you
are helping to cover up a major drug trafficking
scandal. I am curious if you think it is okay for the
government to traffic drugs if the cause is
anti-communist. Your magazine glorifies military
action and the men involved. You simply cannot face
what paid for a lot of the covert operations around
the world. The KLA in the Balkans, the Contras in
Nicaragua, the Vietnam conflict, the Afghan warlords
in present day.
I will respect you if you come out and tell me what
your motivation is for covering up for these people.
Does the ends justify the means? Do you think it is
okay to imprison people for what the government does
with immunity? Do you think foreign policy should be
dictated by drug traffic like it is in Afghanistan,
Central America in the 80's and Asia during the 60's?
If anyone has earned a right to speak, it is Mr.
Castillo. He has suffered long enough for naively
thinking that the U.S. government is a straight,
honest government that always does the right thing.
That is what the government does. It takes a young
man, a true beleiver, and then chews him up.
You owe it to the TRUE heros of the world like Mr.
Castillo, who was chased through the mountains of Peru
by indians angry that he cut down their coca crops....
Sincerely,
Matthew Dickerson
San Diego, California
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 1, 2004 09:50 PM
James
Posted by: James at October 1, 2004 11:16 AM
Not me, I did not say Kerry won the debate. I support President Bush. You must of mixed my post with an other. It's ok. Kerry may of articulated his policies better. But the policies are wrong and dangerous. We all know President Bush is plan spoken and a good leader. If I ever am in need of a good debater I will call on Kerry. But I will vote for President Bush as a leader. Now as for a Vote Bednarik, that is a wait of time and effort, but this is the U.S.A. and vote your passion. Vote for a proven leader President Bush thank you.
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at October 1, 2004 10:14 PM
You Democrats just dont get it. On 9/11 it was not weapons of mass destruction that took our Twin Towers down and destroyed our Pentagon. Terrorism is what destroyed them and killed thousands of innocent lives. We knew Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (are you going to deny that Saddam used them against his own people after Desert Storm, that Clinton and Gore both acknowledge that he had them. Hell Kerry could even go to that democratic CNN Website and find out a speech Clinton made on 12/16/1998. To save you democrats time Ill post the beginning of the speech.
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
Clinton: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered Americas armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqs nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
The interesting thing about 12/16/1998 is that it is exactly 1000 days before 09/11/01
This however, was only part of the reason for going to war with Iraq. You Democrats make it out to be the only reason for going to war. You Democrats have to realize that this world changed after 9/11.Saddam Hussein is all about terrorism and The United States has to defeat terrorism or it will defeat us. The terrorist have a completely different ideology than a free democratic society that we have. They honestly think that “God is Great†when they kill an innocent person by ripping out their tongues, cutting off their hands and feet or throwing them off buildings. How do you reason with a person that thinks that way? Is John Kerry going to change the way they think. Its not only Americans that hate, they hate anyone that does not believe in what they believe in. Why do you think Saddam Hussein has killed so many of his own people, what because we buy oil from the Saudi Arabia.? Get Real. I bet if you were in Iraq and lived under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, that you would want a world leader such as the United States to come in and destroy the living daylights of that regime. You should thank GOD that you are not that person living in Iraq. You should also thank Bush for fighting the terrorist in Iraq rather than fight the terrorist here.
I’ve been to Kerrys Website: There is not one thing on his website that Bush is not doing. If I’m not mistaken wasn’t John Kerry talking about a four point plan during the debate, his webisite mentions a seven point plan. Not only has Kerrys record for the past 20 year not lived up to whats on his website he has done just the opposite.
Any moron can look at his website and then go to www.senate.gov look up voting records and tell the difference.
Posted by: Mike NY at October 1, 2004 10:55 PM
I have many issues with Kerry's plans - He will hand over a turnkey operation to Kofi Annan.
Quote:
The president moved the troops, so he's got 10 times the number of troops in Iraq than he has in Afghanistan, where Usama bin Laden is. Does that mean that Saddam Hussein was 10 times more important than Usama bin Laden -- than, excuse me, Saddam Hussein more important than Usama bin Laden? I don't think so.
Comment: Saddam had 10 times more troops than Al-Qaeda so common sense would dictate that you would need 10 more troops in Iraq than in Afghanistan.
Quote:
Kerry: The terrorism czar, who has worked for every president since Ronald Reagan, said, "Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor."
Comment: Here Kerry is referring to Clarke (a proven liar), and the analogy is nonsense.
Quote:
But this president hasn't even held the kind of statesman-like summits that pull people together and get them to invest in those states. In fact, he's done the opposite. He pushed them away.
Comment: A lie. Bush has met with many of the leaders including Chirac, Schroeder, and many others. They chose NOT to join us.
Quote:
When the Secretary General Kofi Annan offered the United Nations, he said, "No, no, we'll go do this alone."
Comment: Another lie. The UN had been in Iraq until their people were attacked and killed.
Quote:
To save for Halliburton the spoils of the war, they actually issued a memorandum from the Defense Department saying, "If you weren't with us in the war, don't bother applying for any construction."
Comment: This was not done to save the money for Halliburton. It was a message to our alleged backstabbing allies.
Quote:
The United Nations, Kofi Annan offered help after Baghdad fell. And we never picked him up on that and did what was necessary to transfer authority and to transfer reconstruction. It was always American-run.
Comment: Another lie. And when were we supposed to transfer authority and reconstruction to the UN? This was never part of the plan.
Quote:
KERRY: What I think troubles a lot of people in our country is that the president has just sort of described one kind of mistake. But what he has said is that, even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, even knowing there was no imminent threat, even knowing there was no connection with Al Qaeda, he would still have done everything the same way. Those are his words
I wasn't misleading when I said he was a threat. Nor was I misleading on the day that the president decided to go to war when I said that he had made a mistake in not building strong alliances and that I would have preferred that he did more diplomacy.
I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way.
Comment: What is this? Kerry said he would have done the same thing in flip flop #9
Quote:
BUSH: The reason why Prime Minister Allawi said they're coming across the border is because he recognizes that this is a central part of the war on terror. They're fighting us because they're fighting freedom.
They understand that a free Afghanistan or a free Iraq will be a major defeat for them.
Comment: Apparently some people do understand this logic - not just me and USCITIZEN.
Quote:
Kerry: That's why, in my plan, I add two active duty divisions to the United States Army, not for Iraq, but for our general demands across the globe.
I also intend to double the number of special forces so that we can do the job we need to do with respect fighting the terrorists around the world. And if we do that, then we have the ability to be able to respond more rapidly.
Comment: How does he plan to get these people?
Quote:
But I'll tell you this, as president, if it took American forces to some degree to coalesce the African Union, I'd be prepared to do it because we could never allow another Rwanda.
Comment: WHy would he go there? Is Darfur a threat to the US?
Quote:
You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.
Not this president. I'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation.
And we're going to get the job of containing all of that nuclear material in Russia done in four years. And we're going to build the strongest international network to prevent nuclear proliferation.
Comment: THis is the most dangerous idea of the evening. Let's get rid of our nukes and everyone else will too. Can you spell K-O-O-M-B-A-Y-A?
Posted by: Calamity Jane at October 1, 2004 11:30 PM
I noticed something interesting during the debate last night. Kerry was taking notes. I saw this happen once before, during the Nixon-Kennedy debates, that whenever Nixon was making an important point, JFK started writing furiously, distracting the audience from absorbing Nixon's answers. On TV that might work, but another factoid was that both last night and back in 1960, those polled after listening on the radio gave the debates to Nixon and Bush, which only shows that Kerry can imitate Slick Willy's persona and stage presence, but underneath those nice haircuts JM so admires, there's not much underneath. Except for maybe an intern.
Posted by: Dave at October 1, 2004 11:42 PM
Bush may have lost the debate, but he will not lose the election. Most Americans are able to seperate substance from style......
Posted by: JD at October 1, 2004 01:23 PM
Conservatism,
You just couldn't help yourself could you?
Posted by: d. jones at October 2, 2004 12:35 AM
"are you going to deny that Saddam used them against his own people after Desert Storm"
Posted by: Mike NY at October 1, 2004 10:55 PM
Mike,
I'm not 100 percent sure, but 99.9%... Saddam didn't use WMD after Desert Storm. I'm thinking it was in the mid and late 1980's...... However, I've been wrong millions of times before... and quite possibly this time as well.
You do bring up an interesting point. For people who suppor the war on terror, yet not support the war in iraq. Its essentially saying that Saddam Hussein wasn't a terrorist, and I feel that there's no one that can say that and truly believe it. I'm nearly certain, to within reasonable doubt, that iraq had nothing to do with 9/11..... I've never believed THAT, no matter at what moment or who it was said by. The logic that I use though is that he didn't have anything to with 9/11, but a single mans idea with less money and resources killed 3,000 of our civilians... What would Saddam be thinking he could do? After all he's much much richer than Bin Laden, had a way mightier military, and capabilites to create nuclear weapons over time as well as chemical and biological weapons. I agree with John Kerry from the mid 1990's when he said that it wasn't the WMD that posed a serious risk, but Saddam himself.. and a miscalculation of how dangerous that this man might actually be.
Posted by: Conservatism at October 2, 2004 12:44 AM
"I don't know why you're saying what you're saying, "Even though people are saying JK won last nite, they still are voting for GW." I keep hearing the opposite--that most "undecideds" are now going to vote for John Kerry."
Abel,
Actually, he's right. Nothing changed, except more people supported Bush AND kerry aftewards. According to the gallup poll from last night, it goes as follows:
Pre-debate - Bush 50%-Kerry 46%
Post debate (winner) Kerry 53% - Bush 37%
Post debate (support) Bush 51% - Kerry 47%
The poll was taken with a ratio of 35/35/30 (republican/democrat/independant). Also the questions were asked to the SAME people, not a different group each time. Something like a large focus group.
This leads me to believe that even if people think that Kerry was the clear winner (as I do), it doesn't sway them enough to choose one over the other. Alot of pollsters described this as sporting events. Just because your team gets beat, doesn't mean the fan is goin to start rooting for the opponent. Debates are 90 minutes and some 15 questions. If those 90 minutes and 15 questions are enough to sway your vote from one side to the other, you probably haven't listened any in the past 2 years of campaigning. There was not a knockout punch by either of the two candidates. And I'm afraid that with such rallied bases, there's not much going to change. I think the next polls over the next few days to a week, will show kerry at LEAST tied with Bush.. AT LEAST. But I don't think unless something major happens (an october surprise?), that there's goin to be much change in the polls from now till November, even if Bush wins the next 2 debates, or if Kerry wins all 3. It goin to be tied, with either candidate pulling in front by up to 5 points or so depending on the poll. May the best man win.
Posted by: Conservatism at October 2, 2004 12:58 AM
Saddam Hussein is all about terrorism and The United States has to defeat terrorism or it will defeat us.
Mike,
In all of your post you fail to mention a direct link between terror and Iraq, or are you saying Sadaam was the real problem, and terror was used as a reason to oust him? For whom? Bush?
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004 We Want The Truth
Posted by: d. jones at October 2, 2004 01:21 AM
September 21 Zogby poll shows Kerry winning electoral vote!
Released: September 29, 2004
60% of Young Male Voters Say War in Iraq, “Not the Right Decision”; 59% Say President Bush Misled America and Executive Branch- Highly Responsible for the Problems that US faces Today, New Zogby/Williams Identity Poll Reveals
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 2, 2004 01:31 AM
"Kerry passed test No. 1, he is presidential," said Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla. "Now he has to pass test No. 2, is he better?"
My chia pet would make a better President than Bush!
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 2, 2004 02:02 AM
Calamity Jane in Crouch
wearing an outrageous corkscrew-curls wig that could frighten the horses.
Speaking of Calamity. Where is it??
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Alright, who said Teresa Heinz Kerry looked like Tootsie? LOL! Wayne!, you got a beatin' coming whenever you get back from Iraq. If you make it!
Posted by: d. jones at October 2, 2004 02:19 AM
KERRY GETTING HELP IN TEXAS
http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm
Kerry Will Restore
American Dignity
2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement
Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:
• Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.
• Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans’ benefits and military pay.
• Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.
• Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.
• Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.
• Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and
• Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay........
Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence, good sense, and guts to make it happen.
That’s why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country.
The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004 Don't Send Bush Back To Texas, Send Him To Iraq!
Posted by: d. jones at October 2, 2004 02:26 AM
TOP SECRET ADDENDUM TO ELECTION 2004 DEBATE AGREEMENT, entered into on September 20, 2004 by President George W. Bush (hereinafter referred to as "Bush") and Senator John F. Kerry (hereinafter referred to as "Kerry")
WHEREAS, The interesting thing about being the President is you don't have to explain things;
WHEREAS, If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier; and
WHEREAS, Bush and Kerry have entered into a Debate Agreement and wish to modify it and memorialize certain secret debate terms.
NOW, THEREFORE, Bush and Kerry hereby agree to the following top secret provisions:
1. Kerry shall be required to answer all debate questions in French.
2. Bush shall be required to answer all debate questions in English.
3. Throughout each debate, the backdrop behind Bush shall feature several U.S. flags, the precise number of which is subject to further negotiation.
4. Throughout each debate, the backdrop behind Kerry shall feature a map of Massachusetts and two life-size photos of Kerry with Jane Fonda.
5. During the debates, Kerry shall address Bush as "Mr. President" or, if Kerry so elects, "Monsieur President."
6. During the debates, Bush shall address Kerry as "Senator Kerry" or, if Bush so elects, "Senator Flip-Flop."
7. Bush may, if he so chooses, elevate his torso by sitting on one or more padded telephone books. Alternatively, he may debate atop his mountain bike.
8. Kerry may, at his sole option, fluff up his hair, provided that Kerry's hair elevation shall not exceed 1.2 inches above scalp level.
9. Both Bush and Kerry may, but shall not be required to, wear a hat while debating (hereinafter referred to as "optional head-wear.") Bush's optional head-wear shall be a cowboy hat, and Kerry's optional head-wear shall be a beret.
10. Both Bush and Kerry shall wear business attire during debates one and two. However, during the third debate Bush may, if he so elects, wear a flight jacket, and Kerry may, if he so elects, where whatever garb he wears when he windsurfs.
11. All debate attendees shall be required to sign Bush/Cheney loyalty oaths, including all members of the media, except those employed by Fox.
12. Notwithstanding paragraph 11, Dan Rather shall be excluded from each debate, unless a panel of 6 experts unanimously confirms that his Bush/Cheney loyalty oath is not a forgery.
13. If Bush does not wish to answer any given question, he shall so indicate by saying "I'm glad you asked me that question," at which point the questioner shall thank him for his excellent answer and pose the same question to Kerry.
14. Kerry shall be required to sigh at least three times per debate. Moreover, additional sighs shall be required if any cameraman misses the shot.
15. Bush shall not be asked any question that requires him to pronounce the words nuclear, solidarity and/or Abu Ghraib.
16. In the event Kerry is declared the winner of any debate, Bush shall be entitled to a recount.
SIGNATURES: _______________ (President George W. Bush) _______________ (Senator John F. Kerry)
Posted by: d. jones at October 2, 2004 02:45 AM
I've waited a few days to weigh in on the debate. George was, well...George. I don't think we expected anything else. Kerry was articulate, well-rehearsed and had a focused vision. While I agree that he seemed to have a more focused message now, doesn't it bother the Kerry camp that it's a different message from last week, which was a different message from last year, which was a different message from the year before that. For those who have been living in vacuum (and for those who will vote for Kerry because he isn't George Bush) he did cast a persuasive argument and it could be said he won the debate. The real test is was he consistant with his own message and then we are left with the question. What Message? Is this where Kerry really stands-we must be multilateral in our dealing with Iraq but bi-lateral in our dealings with North Korea? When he said we needed to have summit meetings did he mean more summits than we've already engaged in, different summits, or wasn't he aware that we had them since he's been so busy campaigning. To me, neither candidate did real well in the debate. It was boring. It was supposed to be about foreign policy and what we got was about an hour on Iraq and 30 minutes on Korea. There was a lot more to talk about, and little was said. Kerry tried to prove that he has been consistant on the war and he was, at least during the debate, sort of. Kerry lied about the amount of money being spent in Iraq while complaining we weren't spending enough. Kerry called the war a mistake, and then said he supported the troops. If it's a mistake, then what they are doing is wrong. His biggest mistake was to say that there is a global test that somehow we must pass before we can do anything to protect the security of America and then misdirected a quote from DeGaulle who actually turned his back on America. We haven't had the respect of the French for years, long before President Bush. Kerry talked about sanctions that weren't working-17 violations always with a threat of consequences that never happened. Kerry insulted the existing coalition and Allawi while saying he was going to engage in productive debates with our allies. Our allies in this aren't France and Germany and his continual insults against our allies are dangerous for our security. Can anybody explain why we NEED France or Germany but don't need Japan, Spain, Australia, Poland and all the other countries who have helped financially and with troops in the war on terror?
It's fair to say that Kerry won the debate on style. But I don't want a President with style, I want a President with substance. A resolute consistancy is substance, bowing to the winds of political polls is style. Twisting your words to make it sound like you are consistant is style. Misquoting the President is style. That's not what I want. I want substance. George Bush didn't contradict himself, George Bush is resolute and he explained everything he needed to explain about Iraq in the first 15 minutes, after that it was time to move on.
The President has taken a lot of heat because when asked by the press to admit his mistakes he stumbled. He was asked, no encouraged to attack John Kerry during the debate and point our Kerry's flaws the President stumbled sighting only the inconsistance of John Kerry's assessment of the war on Iraq. That demonstrates integrity to me. John Kerry stooped to conquer, and he stooped so low that he was hard pressed to find anything complimentary to say about the President. Now again, who is running the smear campaign?
In the end, I don't think anyone supporting Bush changed their mind. I also don't think anybody supporting Kerry changed their mind. It might come down to the independants and that seems to be mixed. If those independants do a little homework, Kerry's going to be in trouble.
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 2, 2004 01:57 PM
Bruce,
You surprise me. You say, "It's ok. Kerry may of articulated his policies better. But the policies are wrong and dangerous." I really thought you were a smarter man. I thought you knew that Bush's and Kerry's policies for Iraq were indentical. They are exactly the same.
Both Bush and Kerry want to intorduce an Iraqi military and other security forces to support our US Iraqi Government in Iraq. All we have to do is convince the Iraqis that we can select better leaders for them than they can. Haven't you noticed, the leader we selected for them, Allawi?, speaks excellent English and he has already visited Washington DC to thank us and ask for more costly help. He was a complete success in DC and Bush is now using him in his political campaign against Kerry.
Frankly, the policy that Kerry and Bush want to implement in Iraq is the same old policy that failed in Vietnam--both Bush and Kerry think it'll work in Iraq. I cannot understand why the Iraqis don't appreciate all that George W. Bush is doing for them? The Iraqi leader that Bush has selected for Iraq is really a fine man who grew up and was educated in the US, and he like Bush, only wants what's best for all Iraq. Above all, Iraq should appreciate what George W. Bush is doing for it--George W. Bush is going to bring Iraq freedom and liberty even if he has to kill all Iraqis to do it.
The only thing different that Kerry is saying is that he doesn't think that the policy will work if George W. Bush remains as Commander In Chief, i.e., since Bush created the whole mess in the first place and alienated all our historic allies.
You say, "We all know President Bush is plain spoken and a good leader." Well, please don't include me in that, I think George W. Bush has always demonstrated himself to be a stupid leader and that's one thing that he has been consistent about. He's always doing stupid things that alienate people including our friends and allies.
I hope you learn to stay away from our pro-Bushites as they will contaminate you and brainwash you in no time. Believe me, it's not going to do you any good to become like them--to be voting against your own and your family's economic interests. Don't you think that's stupid too?
Your POST follows:
"Not me, I did not say Kerry won the debate. I support President Bush. You must of mixed my post with an other. It's ok. Kerry may of articulated his policies better. But the policies are wrong and dangerous. We all know President Bush is plan spoken and a good leader. If I ever am in need of a good debater I will call on Kerry. But I will vote for President Bush as a leader. Now as for a Vote Bednarik, that is a wait of time and effort, but this is the U.S.A. and vote your passion. Vote for a proven leader President Bush thank you."
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at October 1, 2004 10:14 PM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 2, 2004 02:12 PM
Bush may have lost the debate, but he will not lose the election. Most Americans are able to seperate substance from style......
Posted by: JD at October 1, 2004 01:23 PM
Conservatism,
You just couldn't help yourself could you?
Posted by: d. jones at October 2, 2004 12:35 AM
D. Jones,
I didn't post that...??
Posted by: Conservatism at October 2, 2004 02:14 PM
Mike,
The problem is with you. You're the one who doesn't get it. You're right in saying that it was the Terrorists who brought down our Twin Towers and killed thousands of innocent lives in NYC but you go off in a tangent from there. Saddam Hussein may have had WMDs, etc., but he had nothing to do with the attack in NYC and DC. Can't you understand that? We know that Saddam had the WMDs because we gave them to him during his and our war with Iran. Saddam used to work for us, he did as he was told by us. Can't you understand that? Do a bit more research and you'll find out. Visit:
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/issues/2004-09-23/metro.html
and
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/hall/contra1.html
to begin your research. Please don't continue being ignorant about what you say. Learn the truth and the truth shall make you free.
Your condensed POST follows:
"You Democrats just dont get it. On 9/11 it was not weapons of mass destruction that took our Twin Towers down and destroyed our Pentagon. Terrorism is what destroyed them and killed thousands of innocent lives. We knew Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (are you going to deny that Saddam used them against his own people after Desert Storm, that Clinton and Gore both acknowledge that he had them. Hell Kerry could even go to that democratic CNN Website and find out a speech Clinton made on 12/16/1998. To save you democrats time Ill post the beginning of the speech...
...Any moron can look at his website and then go to www.senate.gov look up voting records and tell the difference.
Posted by: Mike NY at October 1, 2004 10:55 PM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 2, 2004 02:33 PM
Posted by: d. jones at October 2, 2004 02:45 AM
Thats pretty funny D. Jones. I guess I was wrong about you, you really do have a sense of humor... Keep it up. Together, we may end up like a Kerry-McCain ticket someday... haha
Posted by: Conservatism at October 2, 2004 02:46 PM
Bush may have lost the debate, but he will not lose the election. Most Americans are able to seperate substance from style......
Posted by: JD at October 1, 2004 01:23 PM
Conservatism,
You just couldn't help yourself could you?
Posted by: d. jones at October 2, 2004 12:35 AM
D. Jones,
I didn't post that...??
D. Jones and Conservatism
Just to confirm, conservatism didn't post that, I did.
D. jones, like the debate addendum, pretty funny
Posted by: JD at October 2, 2004 03:33 PM
Very Interesting!!
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/561/1/27/
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 2, 2004 04:40 PM
TO: ALL WHO WANT INFO ABOUT SADDAM HUSSEIN
I recommend the following Web Site for people who are still ignorant about the Saddam Hussein connection with our CIA. Hey, Saddam was our man and he did as he was told. We paid him to do it. Visit the following web site and begin to do the required research. As bad as Saddam was, we were not entirely innocient either.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 2, 2004 05:25 PM
How to start each new day with a positive outlook.
1. Open a new file on your desktop.
2. Name it "George W. Bush"
3. Drag it to the trash.
4. Empty the trash.
5. Your computer will ask you, "Do you really want to get rid of George
W. Bush?"
6. Answer calmly, "yes" and press the mouse button firmly.
7. Feel better and VOTE in November!
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 2, 2004 06:03 PM
Abel,
Our so-called historic allies were in bed with Saddam. Doesn't that offend you? You almost sound as if you are one of the few people that actually believe we were better off with Saddam in power. I wonder if you had felt the same way if you lost someone to one of his goons. The minute things don't go as planned you all start pointing the finger. Need I remind you as bad as it may be right now, we are still better off that they are fighting the war overseas and the death toll, although tragic, is still as low as it is.
Abel, you are being unrealistic if you think we could continue to draw a line in the sand with Saddam. He had no respect for the U.N. or the U.S. for that matter. He thumbed his nose up at any of the resolutions and played cat and mouse with the inspectors.
Who's side are you on anyways? You people keep giving our enemies more and more resolve each day. I blame our enemies and people who continue to give our enemies the resolve they need to continue to fight. Be careful what you wish for. You will be the first one to cry foul if the U.S. lost and we were under a dictatorship. You people need to stop protesting for the sake of protesting. You have that right because of people like my grandfather that fought in Iwo Jima. Don't abuse it.
When you call Bush stupid you show your ignorance. So stop the rhetoric and debate the issues.
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 2, 2004 06:38 PM
Abel,
Once again you are not keeping things in perspective. We may have had a relationship with Iraq in the past but just like the French he screwed us. So your argument is obsolete.
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 2, 2004 06:41 PM
Anyone who believes that Saddam had no connection Osama, I want to do business with you. You are naive.
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 2, 2004 06:45 PM
SEATTLE — Three laptop computers containing campaign plans were stolen overnight from the Bush-Cheney state headquarters office, Republican officials said Friday.
A real class act!!!
Posted by: Chris Tatem at October 2, 2004 06:49 PM
Abel,
Perhaps you missed the start of the war with Iraq in 1991. Saddam became our enemy at that time and other then taking a break from actually dealing with him during the Clinton years, hostilities never ended. We were flying sorties over the no fly zomes and getting shot at regularly, he was making fools out of the UN inspectors while he abused the oil for food program that liberals so desperately pushed to put in place, and he was funding and harboring terrorists. Everyone is saying we rushed to war. I don't think diplomacy and letting the UN handle it for a decade is a rush to war and that time and those issues certainly shows us that Saddam used us in his war with Iran not us controlling him.
Posted by: JD at October 2, 2004 08:27 PM
Chris,
I know what you're trying to tell me and it would be a lot simplier if what you were saying were true. Unfortunately, like you pro-Bushites almost always do, you don't know any better and so you're guilty of misinforming and lying.
Take France for instance, if what you were saying was true, why would France have been helping us in Afghanistan? As a matter of fact, France has always been our ally. Your ignorance and malicious lies won't ever change that fact.
As for Saddam, I know that he was a vicious dictator but you should at least mention that Saddam was our man. We trained him and helped him gain power in Iraq. We even paid him out of our CIA funds. Visit the Web site below:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r
Of course I agree that the Iraqi people are better off without him but, like I said, we were responsible for him too, so we're not so innocent either. You need to become better educated regarding Saddam Hussein.
We can't just simply ignore and forget the fact that our war to oust Saddam wasn't necessary. We can't just pretend that we didn't pre-emptively attack and commit agression against Iraq in order to expel Saddam.
For the ump-teenth time, we had Saddam "boxed in." We controlled Saddam as well as Iraq. Look it up, Saddam didn't want to fight us, that's a fact. Our UN inspectors were all over Iraq looking for WMDs while, at the same time, our fighter planes were in control over Iraq's Northern as well as its Southern "No Fly Zones."
Saddam wasn't even in control of Iraq, now you tell me how Saddam could ever have presented us with an imminent threat? Sorry, but that was another lie that George W. Bush told us--the American people.
You say, "..we are still better off that they are fighting the war overseas.." Perhaps, but try telling that to the parents of one of our military men who has been killed or injured in action there in Iraq. You ask me, "Who's side are you on anyways?" and that's the very same question I ask you. The truth is that we should only have gone to war in Iraq as a last resort. They never attacked us. We should never have invaded Iraq. It was Afghanistan's Ossama bin Laden who attacked us.
Unfortunately, you're ignorant too for believing that George W. Bush can do us no wrong. He's the one who is presenting our country with a very grave danger. In fact, he has been dangerously wrong from the very beginning.
Frankly, you are also stupid to think that we could ever live "under a dictatorship." I'm working right now in attempting to help educate people who mistakenly think that George W. Bush is our Commander-In-Chief. He may be our military's Commander-in-Chief but he is certianly not ours. We are civilians and we outrank him. I was in the military and so I know better. He's but one of our many public servants whereas the American people are soverign and he works for us--we do not work for him.
Needless to say, I plan to vote for firing him come November 2, 2,004. I'm voting for the Kerry/Edwards ticket.
Your POST follows:
"Abel, Our so-called historic allies were in bed with Saddam. Doesn't that offend you? You almost sound as if you are one of the few people that actually believe we were better off with Saddam in power. I wonder if you had felt the same way if you lost someone to one of his goons. The minute things don't go as planned you all start pointing the finger. Need I remind you as bad as it may be right now, we are still better off that they are fighting the war overseas and the death toll, although tragic, is still as low as it is.
Abel, you are being unrealistic if you think we could continue to draw a line in the sand with Saddam. He had no respect for the U.N. or the U.S. for that matter. He thumbed his nose up at any of the resolutions and played cat and mouse with the inspectors.
Who's side are you on anyways? You people keep giving our enemies more and more resolve each day. I blame our enemies and people who continue to give our enemies the resolve they need to continue to fight. Be careful what you wish for. You will be the first one to cry foul if the U.S. lost and we were under a dictatorship. You people need to stop protesting for the sake of protesting. You have that right because of people like my grandfather that fought in Iwo Jima. Don't abuse it.
When you call Bush stupid you show your ignorance. So stop the rhetoric and debate the issues."
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 2, 2004 06:38 PM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 2, 2004 08:56 PM
It was not wmd that took the towers down but if you are not narrow minded and look at a large picture as both canidates said during the debate WMD is the biggest threat to the US Bush saw that and looking at the world which country had WMD which leader had a histiry of using WMD. Was there a country that had a like hate for the US. For those who are not up to 10 in IQ the answer is Iraq. Bush see that and took action. The world was wrong about WMD stockpiles but if we had not acted we would be still worried about what Sadam was doing. I feel for the families that have lost loved ones but no action could have been worse I can not believe the number of people in this country that still do not see us at war. We are at war and if we fail or falter we will lose. As bad as Bush is at saying it he will defend us as needed Kerry has still not convinced anyone he wont cut and run His positions change constantly and his global test for action is really just a cover for I will be a UN lap Dog
Posted by: wpnsgy at October 2, 2004 09:47 PM
D Jones I guess you are one of those morons that cant understand the link between terror and what Sadism regime was all about. I guess the mass graves were just a farce. That the Oil for food program actually went to feeding the people in Iraq. While the 9/11 commission did not find any link between Iraq and 9/11, the Oil for food program needs to be investigated thoroughly.
After reading some of your post I really think you are a big coward. What do you think would happen to you if you lived in Iraq and decided to speak out against the government? You are only afforded this freedom because you live in a nation that defends that right. You should thank Bush and especially our Armed Forces for that right. Freedom does not come free.
After 9/11 it proved how vulnerable America was. Iraq given a chance would have tried to do the same thing. The significance of Clinton speech in 1998 indicated Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and if for some reason we were attacked with WMD you democrats would have been all over the president especially after 9/11 for not going to war with Iraq. You democrats would have come out with statements like the whole world knew about Iraqs weapons of mass destruction. Do you D Jones think that we should of taken that chance. And please don’t give me garbage that America has to build alliances with countries that benefited from Iraq like France Germany or Russia or allow weapon inspectors more time to do their job. Clinton should never have allowed Hussein to kick weapon inspectors out of Iraq in the first place. Even Mayor Koch a democratic mayor from New York believes that Bush did the right thing about going to war with Iraq.
Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2004 10:04 PM
SEATTLE — Three laptop computers containing campaign plans were stolen overnight from the Bush-Cheney state headquarters office, Republican officials said Friday.
A real class act!!!
Posted by: Chris Tatem at October 2, 2004 06:49 PM
Hmmmm...
Might this be the next Watergate?
But instead of using bugs, it's a mouse.
Can't you Democrats think of anything original?
Posted by: Dave at October 2, 2004 10:39 PM
Abel, I am very much aware that the US gave WMDs to Iraq during the Iraq /Iran war. It was a mistake never to be made again. With that said however after 9/11 the United States could not afford to take that chance.
As for Bush creating the whole mess Iraq in the first place and alienated all our historic allies you make it sound as if these historic alies bailed us out of previous wars. The US bailed them out of war and these historic alies alienated the United States.
Posted by: Mike NY at October 3, 2004 12:44 AM
Chris: I am an American, not "you people". What makes you think that I don't have family members who have fought in past wars? I have three that I know of that are still alive and one that has died. You make me angry because although you consider everybody who disagrees with you to be ignorant, you are ignorant yourself. There was no al-Queda in Iraq at the time that the US invaded. Saddam was a strong dictator who didn't allow any monkey business. Yes, there was terror by Saddam against his own population. But I gripe was with the terror that was being instigated by al-Queda. Iraq didn't fit that scenario. The war on terror was being waged in Afganistan, and rightfully so. We spread the war from the Afganistan to the Middle East when we made Iraq less stable. Terrorists were then able to slip into Iraq en mass to fight the hated Americans. I agree that it is good that Saddam is gone, but look at the cost of it. You mention that we fight terror in foreign lands so that we don't have to do it here. Do you honestly believe that a terrorist act will not happen here again? With the lax security that we have at our ports and airports (still lax) and our open borders, I don't doubt that something will happen here again. Iraq could have been dealt with after Osama was captured in Afganistan. Osama was the primary threat, not Saddam. Imagine what may have happened if all of our soldiers who are currently in Iraq were actually in Afganistan. Maybe that sorry ass Osama would have been eliminated by now! But no, our soldiers were sidetracked because of the new US created situation in Iraq. Couldn't that have waited a little? Saddam was not going to attack the US. If he did, he would have been dealt a mighty blow at the time. You may think that we launched a pre-emptive strike which may be correct, but why couldn't it have waited until things were sorted out in Afganistan? The US has made the Middle East a more dangerous place by invading Iraq (as if it wasn't bad enough already). This was done against the advice of many both in and out of the military. But we just had to do it. I honestly think that Mr. Bush believed that Iraqi's would welcome the US with open arms and there wouldn't be much of a conflict. THAT IS POOR JUDGMENT in my book. Muslims have been agitating against the US for years. What would make Mr. Bush think that we would be welcomed so easily? Poor judgment.
Now that we are in Iraq, the job needs to be finished. But after how many billions of dollars? The cost of the war is already way over what was predicted. Why? Poor judgment.
Bush has alienated many of our friends. Why? Poor judgment. He figured that because we are the US, others will follow. Big mistake on his part.
Even though the US was at odds with Saddam, we were still buying Iraqi oil! We were in bed with Saddam at one time too, not so long ago. We were supporting Iraq against Iran during the conflict that they had a few years back. The US was supplying Saddam Hussein's military. You know, sometimes we are our worst enemy. Our shortsightedness causes us problems down the road.
Finally, we don't give these Muslims more resolve to fight every day. Allah does this for them. Allah is their resolve. In their eyes, it is a holy war. We are occupying what is theirs and they believe that this requires them to kill the "infidels". Do you think that they really care what is being said over here? They would be trying to kill Americans regardless of what kind of attention the American public was paying to the conflict.
Don't play the "whose side are you on game". That really shows ignorance.
By the way, why would the US be under a dictatorship if we lost (which is not going to happen anyway)? That doesn't make any sense.
By the way, the protesting is not for the sake of protesting. Why would people waste their time if it didn't mean something to them?
Posted by: JM at October 3, 2004 01:14 AM
ABEL
I AM A PRO BUSHIE AS YOU PUT IT. I AM REAL HAPPY TO BE WITH MY FRIENDS IN THE BUSH CAMP. YOUR WRONG IN SO MANY WAYS IT'S NOT WORTH GOING INTO. BUT IN THIS COUNTRY YOU HAVE A GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO BE WRONG. VOTE FOR J.F.K. IF YOU WANT TO LIVE IN THE MARX BROTHERS COMODY OF THE 1930'S, LIVE IN THE COUNTRY OF FREEDOUNIA. J.F.K. STAND FOR NOTHING AND WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING. VOTE FOR PRESIDENT G. W. BUSH A PROVEN LEADER.
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at October 3, 2004 01:52 AM
Kerry's four-point plan for Iraq is realistic, wise, strong, and correct. With the help from our European and Middle Eastern allies, his plan is to train Iraqi security forces, involve Iraqis in their rebuilding and constitution-writing processes, forgive Iraq's multi-billion dollar debts, and convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq's internal affairs.
Abel what you just posted sounds as if this war is over. This is what is needed post war. Abel have you personally ask the Iraqs how they want to govern themselves after the war is over. Could it be that they might not want Kerrys poor excuse of an ally to be involved with Iraq Why should they be involved. Realistically do you believe that Iran will just pack up and go back to its border and sign a pledge of respect and non interference in Iraq affairs. Abel there are people within Iraq that believe that God is Good by killing innocent people. Unfortunatly this war is going to last until enough insurgents are killed and they realize that enough is enough. Until more freedom fighting Iraqies are trained and more insurgents are killed only then can the United States begin to pull troops out of Iraq. Unfortunatly more Americans will die. Why do you think that Bush stated at numerous times in his debate that its hard work. Kerry has no concept of what hard work is. Kerry has to realize saying and doing are two different things.
Posted by: Mike NY at October 3, 2004 02:33 AM
I heard that kerry did a lot of primping b4 the debate i.e. he got his nails done
is kerry running for president or homecoming queen?
Posted by: navyvetopposedtokerry at October 3, 2004 09:57 AM
Latest Newsweek Poll 10/2.... Keep up the good work Kerry Supporters! I just completed my latest zogby poll, and as of 9/21 Kerry was in the electroal vote lead!
Survey BUSH KERRY Margin Includes
Running-
End Date % % Bush Kerry mates?
Newsweek 10/2 46 49 Y
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 02:02 PM
Top Worldwide
E-Mail This Story Printer-Friendly Format
Kerry Gains Lead in Newsweek Poll Following Debate (Update3)
Oct. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry took the lead over U.S. President George W. Bush following this week's debate, a Newsweek magazine poll showed.
Kerry, a four-term senator from Massachusetts and vice presidential candidate Senator John Edwards of North Carolina led Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney 49 percent to 46 percent in the poll of 1,013 registered voters conducted the past two days.
Bush led by as much as 8 percentage points going into the debate, according to four national polls. Iraq dominated the forum between Bush and Kerry, who called Bush's decision to invade the country a ``colossal'' mistake because the president didn't have enough global support for the war. Bush countered that Kerry is sending ``mixed signals'' to the troops and enemies by criticizing the use of force after he voted to authorize the attack.
``There are a lot of polls out right now, but given that there are only 30 days to go to the election, we prefer our candidate's record and message'' to Kerry's, said Reed Dickens, a spokesman for the Bush campaign.
The Newsweek poll also included the views of 770 respondents who watched the Sept. 30 debate at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida. Of these, 61 percent said Kerry did better and 19 percent backed Bush. Three instant surveys the night of the debate and one focus group also concluded Kerry performed better than Bush.
`Up and Down'
``Polls go up and down,'' said Kerry campaign spokesman David Wade. ``What's most important is that in a debate that George Bush demanded, John Kerry proved to America he would be a more efficient commander in chief.''
The lead shifted between Kerry and Bush several times this year, according to the results provided by Newsweek. Of registered voters interviewed for the magazine's poll on Sept. 9 and 10, 49 percent favored Bush, 43 percent Kerry and 2 percent Nader.
In a three-way race that includes independent candidate Ralph Nader, the new poll shows Kerry with 47 percent support, compared with Bush's 45 percent and Nader's 2 percent.
The telephone survey, conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates for Newsweek, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Instant polls by the Gallup Organization, ABC News and CBS News immediately after Thursday night's debate found Kerry ahead by as much as 16 percentage points on the question of who won the encounter. Five of the 18 voters in the focus group by Republican pollster Frank Luntz said they moved from undecided to supporting Kerry, Luntz said in a press release. None switched to Bush.
Debate
Kerry put Bush on the defensive from the start of the debate by accusing Bush of rushing into war in Iraq without the backing of the United Nations and for not being adequately prepared to manage the country after major combat operations ended.
Bush countered by saying Kerry ``was sending mixed signals to our troops'' by criticizing the war after voting to authorize use of force in Iraq.
The day after the debate, Bush returned to the debate topics to criticize Kerry for his ``pattern of confusing contradictions'' over Iraq. ``He has no plan to win in Iraq,'' Bush told a rally in Allentown, Pennsylvania. ``The cornerstone of Senator Kerry's plan is to convene a summit. I've been to a lot of summits, and I've never seen a meeting that would depose a tyrant.''
Kerry shifted his focus after the debate to attack Bush's stewardship of the economy as he prepares for the next debate Oct. 8 in St. Louis.
Kerry said Bush's tax cuts shortchanged programs to protect the U.S. from terrorist attacks. ``He says I don't know how you're going to pay for all that,'' Kerry told a rally in Tampa, Florida yesterday. ``This is from a president who created a tax gap by providing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans instead of investing in homeland security.''
Before and After
Bush futures traded on Intrade.com, a Dublin-based market that opened in 2001, fell to 62 at 1:14 a.m. in Dublin from 67 the day before the debate. The futures prices represent the odds bettors give Bush for winning the election. Kerry futures rose from 36 to 40.5, meaning futures buyers give him a 40.5 percent chance of winning the election. Winning contracts climb to 100 and yield $10 after the election, losing contracts expire worthless.
Kerry last led the Newsweek poll in a survey done July 29 and 30. That survey of 1,010 registered voters found Kerry and led Bush 52 percent to 44 percent. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. Kerry lost his lead after the Republican National Convention in New York at the end of August.
At this point in the 2000 race, Gore held a lead over Bush in polls taken by Newsweek and Bloomberg News. Bush took the lead after that year's debates. A review of state-by-state polls and historical voting data by Bloomberg News shows Bush ahead in 22 states, including Texas and Florida, with 205 electoral votes.
Electoral Count
Kerry leads in 10 states, including New York and Maryland, with 143 electoral votes. In 18 states that have 190 electoral votes, including Pennsylvania and Ohio, results of the most recent polls are within the margin of error.
Bush leads by 9 percentage points in Florida, according to a Gallup poll conducted Sept. 24-27 for Cable News Network and USA Today. Bush was the choice of 52 percent of 704 voters deemed likely to vote and Kerry was backed by 43 percent. The poll's margin of error was 4 percentage points. Bush and Kerry were in a statistical tie a week ago.
In Pennsylvania, Bush leads 49 percent to 46 percent among 654 likely voters polled Sept. 25-28 by Gallup. Among 799 registered voters, Kerry has 49 percent to 45 percent for Bush, within the margin for error. Nader garnered 1 percent of the vote in both Florida and Pennsylvania.
Ohio
Bush's lead in Ohio has narrowed to 2 percentage points, according to a Gallup poll conducted Sept. 25-28. He's supported by 50 percent of 633 likely voters and 48 percent back Kerry. The survey has a 4 percentage-point error margin. Bush led by 8 percentage points in Ohio three weeks ago.
Both campaigns have identified Ohio and its 20 electoral votes as key to the election. No Republican has ever been elected without carrying the state.
On a campaign swing through Ohio today, Bush's 27th trip to the state, the president criticized Kerry's performance during the debate, saying Kerry's comment that a ``global test'' should be used before the U.S. goes to war amounted to a ``Kerry Doctrine.''
Such a doctrine, Bush said, ``would give foreign governments veto power over national security decisions.'' The campaign also launched a new television advertisement featuring that Kerry line from the debate.
Global Test
The ``Global Test' ad distorts what Kerry said in the debate, his campaign said. Kerry's campaign created a new advertisement to counter Bush's claims. ``George Bush lost the debate, the television ad begins. ``Now he's lying about it. This is what you heard John Kerry really say: `The president always has the right for pre-emptive strike. I will hunt and kill the terrorists, wherever they are.'''
Kerry's lead in New Jersey, which no Republican presidential candidate has won since 1988, is also within the margin of error, according to Fairleigh Dickinson University poll. Kerry is supported by 43 percent of 489 likely voters surveyed Sept. 23-28, while 41 percent support Bush. Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said yesterday that the party will spend more time and money in the state to try and win its 14 electoral votes.
In Michigan, Bush and Kerry are in a statistical tie according to a Sept. 22-28 Detroit Free Press poll of 830 registered voters. Kerry is backed by 48 percent while 46 support Bush. The poll has a 3.5 percent margin of error. Kerry held at least a four-point lead in previous surveys, the Free Press said.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 02:12 PM
SEATTLE — Three laptop computers containing campaign plans were stolen overnight from the Bush-Cheney state headquarters office, Republican officials said Friday.
A real class act!!!
Posted by: Chris Tatem at October 2, 2004 06:49 PM
I wonder who Abel, JM, and D. Jokes will blame this on? Nixon and his Watergate buds?
Posted by: Conservatism at October 3, 2004 02:14 PM
Anyone who believes that Saddam had no connection Osama, I want to do business with you. You are naive.
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 2, 2004 06:45 PM
Chris, Let's Do Business!
Show me any sources that proves without a shadow of doubt that Sadaam and Osama were buddies, and conspired against the U.S. with 911.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 02:15 PM
Debate boost gives Kerry lead in new poll
By Staff and Wire Reports
Democrat challenger John Kerry has pulled ahead of President Bush in a poll published by Newsweek magazine showing Thursday's television debate erased the lead Bush had enjoyed for the last month.
Kerry on the stump in Florida
Reuters/Jim Young
In a two-way contest, the Kerry/Edwards ticket in the Nov. 2 presidential election led by 49 percent against 46 percent for Bush/Cheney, according to 1,013 registered voters polled by Princeton Survey Research Associates International.
According to the poll, 61 percent of Americans who watched the first presidential debate on Sept. 30 said Kerry won, 19 percent said Bush won and 16 percent said they tied. The number of debate viewers surveyed was 770.
Bush's job approval rating dropped two points from the Sept. 9-10 Newsweek poll to 46 percent -- a 6-point drop since the Republican national convention a month ago. Fifty-seven percent of all poll respondents -- a total of 1,144 adults -- said they were dissatisfied with the way things were going in the United States now.
Sixty percent of registered voters said Bush administration policies and diplomatic efforts had led to more anti-Americanism around the world and 51 percent said the administration had not done enough to involve major allies and international organizations in trying to achieve its foreign policy goals, the poll showed.
However, 46 percent of registered voters said they would still like to see Bush re-elected, against 48 percent who said they would not like to see him re-elected.
When registered voters were asked who would handle issues better overall, Bush led Kerry 52 to 40 percent on terrorism and homeland security.
Kerry scored better on the economy -- 52 percent against 39 percent -- and health care, including Medicare -- 56 percent to 34 percent. He was also seen to be better at handling American jobs and foreign competition -- 54 percent against 36 percent.
For questions put to registered voters, the margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points; to debate viewers, it was 4.1 points; and for total adults, 3 points.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 04:08 PM
Link to these very interesting article to follow.
Debate 1: Bush Slams Kerry, Reclaims Divine Status
President Says He Follows Iraq Disaster By "Watching TV"
by Michael K. Smith
Posted: 4:13 AM EDT
Florida - Looking like a cranky 5-year-old who hadn't had his afternoon nap President Bush opened the debating season by repeatedly slamming Senator John Kerry for not sharing his Divine status, dismissing him as a vacilating whimp far too weak to lead the nation.
Bush defended his decision to invade Iraq, saying the sacrifice made by 1,059 U.S. troops who have been killed there was "noble and worthy," as evidenced by endless bloody disaster and increasing prospects of a Taliban-style regime.
"We're being challenged like never before, and we have a duty to our country and to future generations of Americans to achieve a free Iraq, a free Afghanistan and to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction," Bush said. His record indicates that the way to do that is to murder and destroy until these countries submit to U.S. puppet governments, at the same time tearing up arms control treaties and mass producing a new generation of weapons of mass destruction.
Very early in the debate, the president conceded that he understood "everybody in this country doesn't agree with the decisions I've made, and I've made some tough decisions. But people know where I stand." The question of whether the President knows where he stands remained unaddressed. Many observers insist he hasn't the slightest clue what the policies of his own administration are. (Full Story - continued . . . )
Vote: Kerry/Edwards
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 04:15 PM
FOR ALL BUSH SUPPORTERS THAT HAVE HARD WORKING FAMILY MEMBERS OVER 80 YEARS OLD. WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO TELL MY OVER 80 YEAR OLD WIDOWED GRANDMOTHER RETIRED FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS AFTER 30 YEARS SERVICE IN A TEXAS STATE RETARDATION FACILITY?? SHOULD I SAY GRAB YOUR OXYGEN TANK AND APPLY AT WAL-MART? FOR ALL THE SMART A** REPUBLICANS... I LOVE MY GRANDMOTHER WITH ALL MY HEART, SHE HELPED ME WHEN MY JOB LEFT TEXAS AS A RESULT OF BUSHS' REIGN OF TERROR, SO LET'S GET IT STARTED IF YOU WANT TO! I PLAN TO RESPOND DIRECTLY TO THE WHITE HOUSE ON THIS ONE!
Bush Urges Seniors to Get Back to Work
$7 Trillion National Debt Cited
October 3, 2004 Posted: 5:26 PM EDT
WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush signed a job-training bill into law Friday to ease the elderly back to work and "end senior loafing as we know it." Bush told a cheering group of nursing home residents that, "There is no free lunch. Cooking and cleaning keeps us fiscally fit and gives seniors moral fiber." Amidst much laughter he added that, "We all know you folks can't get too much fiber."
The newest jobs are ideally suited to the elderly, whose decreased capacities are a perfect match for the tediously monotonous routines favored by employers. GOP plans call for training elderly fry cooks, janitors, Wal-Mart greeters, and nuclear waste disposal experts. The latter is deemed appropriate for those of advanced age, since long gestation periods for cancer don't matter to seniors who will die soon anyway. (Full Story)
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 04:32 PM
Bush Vows to Print "As Much Money As It Takes" to Defeat Debt
Presses Groan Under Added Load
October 3, 2004 Posted: 6:29 PM EDT
WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush toured the Denver Mint on Wednesday as the nation's paper money presses reached capacity. "We can print unlimited money because it's really only paper," Bush assured nervous Wall Street analysts. "But we need the right equipment or we let the terrorists win."
Mint officials have ordered additional printing presses from Taiwan to keep up with surging demand. "We must print over a billion dollars a day to cover the $400 billion in red ink this year alone, and that puts enormous strain on our equipment," said Henrietta Fore, Director of the United States Mint. Mint officials are considering alternatives, such as a $200 bill, wooden nickels, and bartering with fowl. "We like to think outside the coop," winked Ms. Fore. (Full Story)
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 04:37 PM
AMERICANS PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS NOT TRUE!
Bush Defends Ban on War Grief
President Calls on Nation to Forget War's Human Cost
October 3, 2004 Posted: 4:13 AM EDT
WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush on Thursday defended his decision to exclude grief from U.S. war coverage, saying that lost lives and limbs show that the "evildoers still hate us" and thus confirm that we are "on the path of freedom."
The president, making his first appearance at a funeral for Americans killed in Iraq, posed beside a flag draped coffin and claimed that death is "no big deal." (Full Story)
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 04:39 PM
Bush Appoints Schwarzenegger Warden of Iraq
October 3, 2004 Posted: 6:29 PM EDT
Gropenfuehrer To Head Up Iraq Sex Probe, President Says
Crawford, TX -- President Bush appointed California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Warden of Iraq yesterday, promising the U.S. would get to the bottom of the Abu Ghraib sex abuse scandal once and for all. "It is time to put the hypercriticism to rest and find out how we are completely innocent," said Bush in a national radio address.
"No one probes more thoroughly than I do," added Schwarzenegger from Sacramento. (Full Story)
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 04:43 PM
"Bush Chosen by God," Faithful Report
Christ-like Image Unmistakable
October 3, 2004 Posted: 5:26 PM EDT
NORMAN, OK -- President Bush is seen by many of his supporters as an answer to their prayers. "He was hand picked by the man upstairs and that's good enough for me," gushes Tammy Foster, a spot welder from Norman, Oklahoma...
"There was only one Jesus," Bush whispered during a recent Sunday service, "but in all humility I probably come closer to him than anyone else this millennium." Bush reiterated his view that U.S. Mideast policy would bring on Armageddon and give the gift of the Second Coming to all humanity. Given the upsurge in demand for fissionable materials in Iran and Pakistan following the U.S. invasion of Iraq, his expectations appear to be amply justified... (Full Story)
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 04:45 PM
Al Qaeda Bombers Endorse Bush
Terrorists Thank Allah For America's 'Holy Idiot'
October 3, 2004 Posted: 11:19 PM EDT
CAIRO, EGYPT -- An Islamic militant group claiming responsibility for the train bombings in Spain endorsed a second term for President George W. Bush recently, praising his "idiocy and religious fanaticism," which the group said is helping to "wake up" the Islamic world.
In the statement, the group praised Allah for raising up the perfect leader to advance their cause, citing direct and plenary inspiration in Bush's calling the War on Terror a "crusade," turning the stomach of the entire world with constant lying and aggression, and placing thousands of U.S. soldiers in hopeless battle positions in the heart of the Middle East.(Full Story)
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 04:47 PM
"Drug Prices Too Low" Declares Bush
Pharmaceutical Executives Face Mothballing Their Yachts
October 3, 2004 Posted: 10:32 PM EDT
WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush recommended price supports for the ailing drug industry during a stopover at a major manufacturing facility. According to a recent study by the drug industry, profits have dipped to 30% in the first half of 2004, setting off alarms bells throughout Wall Street. Congress has demanded action.
Between calls for cheap Cipro for anthrax victims and affordable antiretrovirals for AIDS patients, pharmaceutical executives are hardly able to maintain their yachts and palaces. And without these, the American economy will surely collapse, as literally millions of jobs depend on maintaining the billionaire lifestyle. (Full Story)
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 04:50 PM
Ken Lay Appointed Assistant Treasury Secretary
"Lay suffered enough," Bush Says
October 3, 2004 Posted: 3:07 PM EDT
WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush met briefly today with former Enron Chairman Ken Lay in the White House Rose Garden. Despite shouted objections from homeless former Enron employees outside the gates, Bush pardoned his loyal friend and offered him a job. "Who else can cook the books like Kenny boy," Bush grinned, "and who best to hide the mounting losses in our budget deficit?" (Full Story)
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 04:51 PM
Bush Raises Retirement Age to 82
Shortfall in Social Security Cited
October 3, 2004 Posted: 2:23 PM EDT
WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush called a press conference on Wednesday to announce his "Seniors Get Back to Work" program. His refreshing frankness indicates he is one of the few politicians willing to tell the truth about the coming bankruptcy of the Social Security system. "There's no longer any reason to hide the obvious," Bush admitted, "The tax cuts we gave to the hardest-working one percent have created an enormous problem with the solvency of our so-called safety net." (Full Story)
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 04:53 PM
http://www.bush2004.com/
My previously posted information was taken from the above URL. I hope this is a joke! I am researching the information at this time.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 04:55 PM
Raising the Retirement Age
The wrong direction for Social Security
by Christian E. Weller
The debate over Social Security has emerged as a key election-year issue, as the presidential candidates offer proposals for reforming the system or enhancing retirement security. The Republican presidential nominee, Gov. George W. Bush, has proposed fundamentally changing the Social Security program by "carving out" private accounts from the current system. Under the Bush proposal, workers would be able to divert part of their Social Security payroll tax, reportedly two percentage points, into private accounts. In order to pay for these private accounts, Gov. Bush has left open the possibility that the resulting gap in Social Security funds could be made up through benefit cuts for younger workers, including an increase in the retirement age.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 05:02 PM
Bush Reelection Would Mean Changes For Social Security
Reforms Could Mean Uncertainty For Disabled
POSTED: 3:31 pm CDT October 1, 2004
If President George W. Bush is re-elected, watch out for radical changes in the Social Security system brought about by his attempts to privatize this bedrock government program.
Witold Skwierczynski, president of the AFL-CIO Government Employees Council, says Social Security is solvent until 2052. But he said the Bush administration's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and the enormous cost of the war in Iraq are chipping away at the current surplus in the Social Security trust fund.
"That's how they are paying for the big tax cuts," he said. "They are going after the poorest elements of society."
His union represents the government workers in 1,300 Social Security field offices across the country that handle benefit checks for the elderly, needy children under 18 years of age and the disabled.
The administration is playing the scare card and telling young people that the Social Security system is going bankrupt. After the baby boomers retire, younger workers are being told, retirement benefits won't be there for them. According to this dire scenario, private investment accounts are the answer -- unless you want to talk about hiking the Social Security tax or cutting benefits.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 05:10 PM
The Bush Record: Robbing Social Security to Pay for Risky Tax Schemes
Bush broke his promise to protect the Social Security surplus and is looting the Social Security Trust Fund, spending every dime on tax cuts for the wealthy. His proposals to privatize Social Security would cost trillions, cut benefits and raise the retirement age.
Bush Looted the Social Security Trust Fund
Bush's promise: "My plan will keep all Social Security money in the Social Security System, where it belongs."1
Bush broke his promise in record time. To cover the cost of his tax cuts, Bush will have to spend the entire projected Social Security surplus of $2.4 trillion from 2005 through 2014.2
In fact, Bush was already planning on looting the Social Security trust fund when he made that promise. In August 2001, USA Today reported, "The White House is backing away from its pledge to protect every cent of Social Security reserves in the face of a report today that the government is tapping Social Security taxes for other programs."3
The Privatization Nightmare
Can you afford to foot a $1 trillion bill? In 2001, Bush's Social Security reform commission suggested partial privatization Social Security. Independent analysis of the President's proposals to privatize Social Security have noted than any such plan would cost at least $1 trillion. Bush has not said where this money would come from.4
And for your $1 trillion, you get benefit cuts. Bush's Social Security reform commission released three final plans in December 2001, all promoting privatization. The New York Times reported: "President Bush's Social Security Commission set out three options today for allowing workers to establish individual investment accounts and acknowledged that the proposals would have to be accompanied by benefit cuts or other painful steps if the retirement system was to avert a long-term financial crisis."5
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 05:13 PM
I post this statement made by Bruce Springsteen because it is a perfect summation of how I feel about the USA. I love this country, but I am a truth-seeker. I don't accept everything that is presented to me as being the truth. If I did, I would be a fool. Don't go through life with blinders on.
Bruce Springsteen:
America is not always right — that's a fairy tale you tell your children — but America is always true, and it's in seeking this truth that we find a deeper patriotism," Springsteen told cheering fans after endorsing Kerry, a Democrat.
Posted by: JM at October 3, 2004 05:22 PM
“Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.”
Left-Wing Media In An Uproar Over Report Taken From Right-Wing Media Source – But Does Either Side Have It Right (And Should We All Be Very Afraid?)
by Samuel A. Stanson
DECEMBER 12, 2003 - The above quote is taken from a right-wing news source called NewsMax. General Tommy Franks, the man who led our recent invasion of Iraq, was interviewed this month in Cigar Aficionado magazine (also a right-wing news source) and NewsMax did a story on the interview.
NewsMax wrote: “In (Cigar Aficionado magazine’s) December edition, the former commander of the military’s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.”
Their lead-in paragraph was even starker: “Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.”
Now, go take a look at the NewsMax site. There is no question it is a heavily right-wing biased news source.
They go on to assert: “Already, critics of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail civil liberties and sets a dangerous precedent. But Franks’ scenario goes much further. He is the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government.”
Well, numerous left-wing news sources, websites, and commentators are in a fury over the comments. They are posting this NewsMax coverage of the Cigar Aficionado interview on their pages as a shocking, alarming warning; more proof that the Bush administration and people associated with it are out to turn us into a dictatorship – and on the verge of doing so. In fact, these quotes absolutely make it sound like they are just waiting for an excuse to get rid of the Constitution and impose “martial law,” as Tina Brown of the Washington Post (link: Paris Hilton, In An Age Beyond Embarrassment) deemed Franks’ comments to be speaking of.
In fact, if you look at the report from NewsMax, backed up and supported by direct quotes from General Franks, you can easily get alarmed that there is something very devious afoot.
But while in many ways this Bush administration is clearly acting as if they find our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms are a hindrance, General Franks in no way says what they say he says, even if the quotes are entirely accurate. In fact, the General Franks interview is positive and negative for both the Bush side and the opposition.
How can such an alarming statement not be as bad as it sounds? Well, it comes down to one misrepresentative word and one omitted sentence.
Notice above in both of the first two quotes from NewsMax the word “likely.”
“… Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass … the Constitution will likely be discarded.”
“…warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD)… it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.”
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 05:23 PM
Schwarzenegger Tells Leno He has "No Use for a Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage"
SACRAMENTO, March 2, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, in an interview with TV personality Jay Leno on Monday, said he would be "fine" with the prospect of homosexual "marriage" for the state if the people voted to approve it. He also said that he had "no use" for a constitutional amendment that would seek to bar homosexual "marriage".
Schwarzenegger at one time told a reporter that "When it comes to sex, I don't care what your (thing) is," claiming that the discrimination against homosexuals was similar to the discrimination felt by bodybuilders.
Despite his comments Monday, the Governor plans to respect the law as it stands. San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom has defied California's Proposition 22 by granting marriage licenses to over 3,000 homosexual couples since February 12. In response, Schwarzenegger said "Californians spoke on the issue of same-sex marriage when they overwhelmingly approved California's law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. I support that law, and I encourage San Francisco officials to obey that law," he said. But when asked if he would have a problem if voters decide to change the definition of marriage in California, he told Leno "No, I don't have a problem."
Executive director of the Campaign for California Families and one of the leading opponents to the gay marriage effort, Randy Thomasson, told the San Francisco Chronicle that "millions of Californians are depending on Arnold Schwarzenegger to keep his campaign promise to protect marriage for a man and a woman. Four-and-a-half million Californians reaffirmed the unique and important institution of marriage for a man and a woman in 2000, and they haven't changed their minds about what's best for the children," he said.
Thomasson credited Schwarzenegger's comments on The Tonight Show to an "unfortunate slip of the tongue. Arnold was focusing on Proposition 57 [to sell $15 billion in deficit bonds] more than focusing on his words on marriage, and his was an unfortunate slip of the tongue," he said.
Thomasson made clear that "State law must reflect natural law, and in this case, people can depend on the law upholding the natural design of man-woman marriage."
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 05:25 PM
IT APPEARS AS IF THE SITE IS NOT COMPLETELY RELIABLE. I AM STILL RESEARCHING. WHEW!, IS GOT REALLY UPSET FOR A MINUTE!
Blather: What does the Schwarzenegger appointment mean?
Clinton: It means that sexual contact between U.S. security forces and Iraqi civilians is a private matter that the media have no business meddling in. Enough already with this Sexual McCarthyism!
Blather: Great point! There is one thing you can say about a Hollywood actor ... he knows how to put on a production. He left for Baghdad on his airbus nicknamed "The Molester." This suggests he can poke fun at himself as well as bodily appendages at women. That's versatility, isn't it?
Clinton: It certainly is. Of course, I tried some diversionary jokes out on Ken Starr, but they never seemed to tickle his funny bone. I guess I need more work on my delivery.
Blather: Do you think President Bush values Governor Schwarzenegger's experience with group sex and groping women?
Clinton: I do. Remember, President Bush spent the Vietnam years bed-hopping with West Texas bimbos, so he appreciates a manly man as much as anyone. And Schwarzenegger was just trying to bring publicity to weightlifting by getting involved in group sex. That is obviously a sound strategy that will reap similar dividends in Iraq. Maybe he can schedule a kind of Sexual Olympics there and pass off the whole Abu Ghraib business as the learning phase for a new sport. It's worth a shot.
Blather: Any chance you'll get back in action yourself?
Clinton: I don't think so. I'm really an amateur at this sex abuse business. That's why I got bogged down in thong underwear and cigars and what the meaning of the word is is. Attack dogs and mass sodomy are well beyond my range.
Blather: Well, we all enjoyed it nonetheless.
Clinton: Except Hillary! (laughs)
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 05:30 PM
Schwarzenegger appoints 16-member Council of Economic Advisers
Bakersfield Californian ^ | 9/17/04 | Jim Wasserman - AP
Posted on 09/17/2004 8:12:54 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO (AP) - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger named a 16-member Council of Economic Advisers on Friday that leans heavily on Stanford University's conservative Hoover Institution and includes major Republican establishment thinkers on supply-side economics and reducing government regulations and taxes.
Schwarzenegger named former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz to chair the group of Nobel Prize winners, California economics professors and former advisers to Republican presidents Bush, Reagan and Nixon.
Shultz, the former Reagan Administration secretary of state who also headed Schwarzenegger's 18-member Economic Recovery Team during last year's recall campaign, similarly advised former two-term Republican Gov. Pete Wilson during the 1990s.
The team's work starts as the state's economy, one of the world's largest, grapples with a continued technology industry slowdown and a growing population of low-skilled workers. While unemployment fell last month to a three-year low of 5.8 percent, state government remains strapped for cash as it copes with a massive, still-growing backlog of infrastructure needs from transportation to schools to water supplies.
Shultz said Schwarzenegger "is in the process of taking a deep breath" after focusing on inherited state budget deficits and economic problems and now wants to set his own agenda.
"What we hope to do is be useful to the governor and help him and his staff think through the economic implications of economic policy, simple as that," he said.
In a statement, Schwarzenegger called his team a "group of brilliant individuals with a clear understanding of the complexities of our economy and the steps necessary to rebuild it."
Shultz said the council will convene Oct. 4 in Sacramento, mixing private meetings among members with meetings with Schwarzenegger.
Some quickly called the 15-man, one-woman advisory team "extremely narrow" in its economic philosophy, while others praised the governor for reaching beyond the confines of the Capitol.
"I think it's great he reached out for advice to people who are not professionals in the Sacramento circle, and have interesting and useful ideas," said Aaron Edlin, a University of California, Berkeley economics professor who served as a senior economist with President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers.
Edlin, while noting that the group's ideological spectrum largely represents a single economic view, said it's unusual for governors to appoint such high-level groups. Among high-profile members are Arthur Laffer, whose theory of tax cuts to stimulate prosperity became a key foundation of the Reagan administration's economic plans. Others include Milton Friedman, a 1976 Nobel Prize-winning economist.
"This is not an example of what he does best," said Raphael Sonenshein, political science professor at California State University, Fullerton, regarding the governor's choices. "What's best about him is the eclectic nature of the input he gets. This is extremely narrow and a limited point of view on economic matters in a very diverse state. This is pro-business, free market, low taxes and reducing regulations on business.
"This strikes me more like you're positioning yourself nationally with the Republican Party," Sonenshein added. "Probably he already knows what he wants to do in this area and wants to get confirmation."
As polls last year showed the economy foremost on the minds of voters, Schwarzenegger promised to ease government regulations on California businesses and not raise taxes.
The governor's advisers also include prominent California lawyers, investors and at least three members of his 2003 transition team.
The governor's office said the council members will not be paid.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 05:41 PM
Chris,
Wouldn't it be great if we could just forget all those negative things that we have done in the past? Unfortunately, while we may forget, others probably won't and they'll keep reminding us until we confront the reality of what we have done. The reality, as I'm sure the French and Saddam Hussein saw it, was that we screwed them and not vice versa. How most Americans now feel about George W. Bush is not obsolete. He'll never be able to unite us because while some of us may like him, many others will never trust him again.
It's widely known that Saddam kept "begging" us not to go to war against him and Iraq. All Americans know that Iraq had already been defeated by us and that most of Iraq's military power was destroyed. Before our invasion of Iraq, Saddam kept giving in to us regarding whatever conditions and/or requirements we demanded.
What Saddam wanted most of all was for us to leave him and Iraq alone. Saddam's repeated requests were all for nothing as George W. Bush simply wanted him out of power. Why? Who knows? Bush never played it straight with the American people. George W. Bush kept right on lying to us until he invaded Iraq. I guess he just got used to lying to us because he still hasn't stopped. George W. Bush needs to realize that most Americans sense it when they're being lied to and that's why most of us no longer trust George W. Bush. Can you blame us?
To conclude, George W. Bush never gave the American people any real or logical reason for invading Iraq. Frankly, most Americans now know that Iraq was never an imminent threat to the US. All of us also know that Iraq never had any WMDs to speak of and that they would have used them against us had they had them. Ask yourself, if Saddam had WMDs, why didn't he use them against us once we had invaded Iraq? I don't believe the world would have ever blamed him for using the WMDs against us at that point. What do you think?
Your POST follows:
"Abel, Once again you are not keeping things in perspective. We may have had a relationship with Iraq in the past but just like the French he screwed us. So your argument is obsolete."
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 2, 2004 06:41 PM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 3, 2004 05:54 PM
d. jones:
I wonder if they can say that we are one in the same today? You would have had to type one of your messages pretty quick to have it appear 1 minute past the last message I posted at 5:23pm! So much for the conspiracist.
Posted by: JM at October 3, 2004 06:35 PM
Abel,
France did not support the U.N. resolutions to take action against Hussein so they are not are allies. They were also involved in the oil for food scandal.
Based on 9/11 I still would rather the war be fought over there.
D., I never said they conspired together for 9/11 specifically just said they are connected. Saddam has given money to homicide bombers' families. That is a connection.
JM: I never said you were not American. I consider you to be ignorant because you give our enemies fuel, not because you disagree.
You have no proof that there was no al-Queda in Iraq at the time that the US invaded. Saddam was a strong dictator who didn't allow any monkey business. Yes, there was terror by Saddam against his own population. We went to Iraq because everyone including Kerry, Clinton, Albright, the UN perceived Saddam as a threat. I don't doubt that a terrorist act will not happen here again. They only have to be right once. We are doing a fine job so far. Results speak volumes. You don't know that Iraq could have been dealt with after Osama was captured in Afganistan. What is your security clearance? Couldn't that have waited a little?!!!! We waited 8 years for him to comply!!!!!! You don't know if Saddam was going to attack the US. He was shooting at our pilots.
Bush has alienated many of our friends??? What friends?????
You do give the Muslims more resolve to fight every day.
It is not ignorant to stand on the side of our Commander and Chief during wartime.
You are arrogant to think that the U.S could never fall and my point is you curse the same country that gives you the freedom to do so.
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 3, 2004 08:01 PM
Is anyone else reading these posts. I cannot believe we are at war. These people think that Kerry can do it better? The same guy that in his 20 years in the Senate has voted against the military and our weapons systems if not every time, almost every time. Also, he has been on both sides of the Iraqi issue even during the debate.
I cannot believe what I am reading.
Kerry wants to check in with France and Germany, 2 countries in bed with Saddam,before protecting our sovereignty. This is thought that should wake you up in the middle of the night.
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 3, 2004 08:16 PM
Abel,
I am going to ask you one more time what is your security clearance that you were so sure he was not a threat? The whole world including Clinton said he was. Where have you been the last 12 years. As for us supporting Iraq in the past. Things change for the good of our national interests. We now have allies like Japan and Britain but if they were on the wrong side that could change again too.
Stop trying to justify Saddam Hussein, he killed, raped and mutilated his own people.
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 3, 2004 08:25 PM
Mike,
I'll just put it this way, Saddam Hussein did everything he could to avoid a war with us. He was aware that his military had already been destroyed almost 100 percent by us and he wanted nothing to do with us. He literally begged us not to invade Iraq. Our UN inspectors were roaming all of Iraq looking for WMDs while at the same time our airplane fighters were in control of Iraq's Northern as well as its Southern "No Fly Zones." Saddam couldn't even control his own country let alone present us with an imminent danger. The truth sometimes hurts but we must recognize it and learn to live with it. That's where George W. Bush is failing---he refuses to accept the truth.
All this fell in deaf ears because George W. Bush wanted to become a War President. For whatever reason, Bush wanted to see Saddam out of power in Iraq. The only other point that Americans must remember is that Iraq never presented us with an imminent danger or threat. The shame of it is that George W. Bush never played it straight with the American people. He never told us exactly why it was so important to expel Saddam from Iraq. Well, he did lie about Saddam having WMDs and being an imminent threat. Now, it appears that we are engaged in killing a lot of Iraqis in order to give them liberty and freedom.
We must remember that Iraq never attacked us although George W. Bush inferred that Saddam had something to do with the 9/ll Attack on our Twin Towers in NYC and the Pentagon in DC. That Iraq had anthing to do with the 9/11 attack was, what I call, a Bushite Lie. It was in reality, illegal for us to attack or invade Iraq as we had no reason to do it. Think about the over 1,000 GIs who have been killed and tens of thousands GIs who have been injured because of George W. Bush. Heaven only knows how many Iraqis have killed and injured just because of Bush.
George W. Bush lied to the American people and kept right on lying---unfortunately, many Americans still believe that lie. I don't appreciate it when one of our public servants lies to the American people and we have to recognize that George W. Bush is only one of our public servants. He may think that he out ranks our citizens but he doesn't---he works for us---we do not work for him.
In regard to our allies---we wouldn't even be here had it not been for France helping us out during our Revolutionary War against England. France has always been on our side as an equal partner when we needed them. George W. Bush acted like a Bully with them and they refused to work with us that way. Can you blame them?
The truth is that France has always been of help to us including recently in Bosnia and Afghanistan. When France gave up in Vietnam, we took over their War against the Viet Cong which was a big mistake on our part but that's what happened.
Knowing the truth sometimes hurts but we should at least recognize that sometimes we make mistakes too as we did in Venezuela recently, in Chile, in Nicaragua, in Panama, in Grenada, in Iran and in other places in South America.
We really need to do a lot of reading and study to become familiar regarding the mis-adventures that our CIA and other American agencies become involved in. Some of the things we do is regarded as illegal by other governments.
We also need to recognize that we exist all around the globe and that sometimes the things we engage in are not helpful in getting us friends. Unfortunately, Iraq is one of those places now.
Your POST follows:
"Abel, I am very much aware that the US gave WMDs to Iraq during the Iraq /Iran war. It was a mistake never to be made again. With that said however after 9/11 the United States could not afford to take that chance.
As for Bush creating the whole mess Iraq in the first place and alienated all our historic allies you make it sound as if these historic alies bailed us out of previous wars. The US bailed them out of war and these historic alies alienated the United States."
Posted by: Mike NY at October 3, 2004 12:44 AM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 3, 2004 09:00 PM
I don't know why all you Bush supporters are so willing to tout your ignorance of John Kerry by stating the talking points of the Bush-Cheney Campain... John Kerry hasn't changed his positions, he just articulated them more precisely in the debate. The problem is that he's been too nuanced (I personally don't think so but...) and the GOP and Bush/Cheney have used that nuance to take him out of context. Kerry has always thought that we needed to disarm Saddam... The point is that he doesn't agree with the war, because it wasn't necessary; we should have continued to pressure him and let the weapons inspectors work. The inspections obviously did work, as we have yet to find the stockpiles that were supposed to be there. This war was about WMD, and thats a pretty moot point by now. Kerry thought that Bush rushed into this thing and wasn't patient enough to let the inspectors do their job, he told them to pull out so we could attack instead. Kerry has not changed position on the war, or on anything else for that matter. The truth may be hard for you to swallow, but to not accept the truth is to play along with a very dangerous game. We need a president that can face the reality that Iraq isn't going so well, and we need to change the tactics and get allies to help us. Bush may change tactics, but we're only loosing ground with the allies.
So to sum it all up When Senator Kerry voted to authorize force, he voted to give the President a loaded gun - not to shoot ourselves in the foot with it.
Bush said (at the Debate):
"Let me first tell you that the best way for Iraq to be safe and secure is for Iraqi citizens to be trained to do the job.
"And that's what we're doing. We've got 100,000 trained now, 125,000 by the end of this year, 200,000 by the end of next year."
MSNBC September 24
"The Pentagon also said on Monday that only about 53,000 of the 100,000 Iraqis on duty now have undergone training.
The documents, obtained by Reuters, show that of the nearly 90,000 currently in the police force, only 8,169 have had the full eight-week academy training. And it will be July 2006 before the administration's new goal of 135,000 fully trained police is met."
Now, the question is, I guess, is Bush a liar or just so out of touch he doesn't know the truth?
Bush said that there are 100,000 trained Iraqis. The Pentagon says only 8,169 are fully trained and only 53,000 have had any training. Is he not telling the truth, or is it just that he doesn't know? Does he just say whatever his campaign people tell him to say?
What about Poland? You forgot about Poland!
-- Poland, which has about 2,400 troops in Iraq and was a strong supporter of the U.S.-led invasion, was "misled" about the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, its president said Thursday.
The remarks by President Aleksander Kwasniewski to a small group of European reporters were his first hint of criticism about war in Iraq.
Earlier in the day, Kwasniewski said Poland may start withdrawing its troops from Iraq early next year, months earlier than the previously stated date of mid-2005.
"Naturally, one may protest the reasons for the war action in Iraq. I personally think that today, Iraq without Saddam Hussein is a truly better Iraq than with Saddam Hussein," Kwasniewski told the European reporters.
"But naturally I also feel uncomfortable due to the fact that we were misled with the information on weapons of mass destruction," he said, according to a transcript released by the presidential press office.
The Bush administration argued for the war based on intelligence that President Bush said left "no doubt" that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
President Bush, in the chow line with troops at Fort Campbell, Ky., after delivering a speech, was asked about Kwasniewski's remarks but shook his head and said, ``I'm here to eat.'' --
The media can spin what they want, all they want... but they wont fool me.
And they can't fool everybody... Once you see that this administration has lied, its hard to ever trust them again. At least Kerry is telling us the truth. I have the utmost respect for him because of that. Its just too bad that dirty politics is actually working to make people believe that HE is the one lying. But its no wonder why... with Kerry's record against corruption, its do or die.
We need more people like John Kerry in our government... and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he will be an awesome president. I'm sure he'll do an excellent job cleaning up the mess Bush has made.
Posted by: Peace + Love at October 3, 2004 09:05 PM
Posted by: JM at October 3, 2004 05:22 PM
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 05:23 PM
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 05:25 PM
Now I ask you, is it possible that these two idiots are one in the same? Yes it is.
Just because you post one minute apart does not make you two diferent people. You can still not explain the same exact posts.
Posted by: Wayne at October 3, 2004 10:01 PM
Well, I guess Wayne got that ticket to Iraq I sent him.. He won't be coming back. Trust me.
Posted by: d. jones at September 30, 2004 12:14 AM
I guess we see we cannot trust you any more than we could trust Kerry.
Posted by: Wayne at October 3, 2004 10:09 PM
Bruce:
The only leadership that President Bush has shown is his ability to lead the country down the road of economic mismanagement and to lead our country into a conflict with mis-"leading" information. Hail to President Bush, the king of TEXAS. They must be suckers down there!
Posted by: JM at October 3, 2004 11:14 PM
Posted by: Wayne at October 3, 2004 10:09 PM
Wayne,
Did you find those darn WMD's while in Iraq? I guess you took a Ken Lay Enron flight back to the U.S. Bush lied about the WMD's in Iraq, didn't he?
JM,
Don't humor Wayne or the other Republican Dummy JR's. We know we didn't post those comments. Wayne is messing with you mind.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 3, 2004 11:23 PM
D Jones After scanning your post You really need to get a life. You spent your whole Sunday with the Idiot Box.
Posted by: Mike NY at October 3, 2004 11:39 PM
I think Conservatism is really a Democrat!
CollegeStudent even if Kerry made a comeback it's too late for him to overtake Bush in the polls the election is just a month away.
Posted by: Stud at October 1, 2004 01:19 PM
I disagree Stud. I disagree.
Posted by: Conservatism at October 1, 2004 10:03 PM
d. jones - I disagree as well Conservatism, since the latest Newsweek poll show Kerry ahead 49 to 46.
I predict the debate will be nearly equal, possibly Kerry barely winning or vice versa. I consider Bush a strong debater and communicator, even with his problems with the english language... But he talks in small words, possibly because he can't use big ones.
Posted by: Conservatism at September 30, 2004 01:48 PM
d. jones - Conservatism you just admitted Bush is dumb.
I don't know about you, but if it were between Kerry and Hilary, I'd vote for the woman EVERYTIME. Now do you get what I'm saying?
Posted by: Conservatism at September 28, 2004 06:33 PM
d.jones - Conservatism, you care about womens rights?
What happened to your church manners? I recall just yesterday you were saying you were a 'church boy'. Now it seems you're using the F-word, and other words that I don't recall Jesus endorsing. Keep it up, the headline is still: "Bush Leads!!"
Posted by: Conservatism at September 27, 2004 02:40 PM
d. jones - Conversatism, as you can see that is a lie.
Or is it that New York is now a red state on here? haha... Good Job!
Posted by: Conservatism at September 25, 2004 09:42 PM
d. jones - Conversatism, another lie.
God bless you D. Jones
God bless this great country
God bless the leaders, future leaders, and leaders who have led in the past.
And no matter who you support and why, please support and pray for our troops. They deserve it and need it! Thanks again! God bless!
Posted by: Conservatism at September 16, 2004 04:37 PM
d. jones - Conservatism is a Kerry Supporter like d. jones.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 4, 2004 12:13 AM
Abel you are posting moronic statements again in your post you say Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted to be a war president for some reason. It is apparent that you have forgotten about 9/11 and the Afghan war. Bush did not need Iraq to be a war President it was forced on him by 9/11. Bush could have ignored Iraq and would probably popular as hell right now but a threat was at hand and he did his job and did not worry about his popularity. Can you Kerry supporters explain how Kerry can say it would be reckless and irresponsible to vote against the 87 billion funding bill then a few days later vote against it? Or when he said of Dean that anyone that does not believe the US is safer with out Sadam then he does not have the judgement to be president now he is saying the war was wrong a colossal mistake. Oh yeah and he is going to get new allies by telling them hey I have a colassal mistake on my hands come help me out LOL He is the one that will not face reality France and Germany have already said no troops no matter who is president
Posted by: wpnsgy at October 4, 2004 12:18 AM
From the INDC Journal, also posted on many other sites
John Kerry brought prohibited material into last Thursday's Presidential Debate. From section 5, pages 4-5 of the binding "Memorandum of Understanding" (pdf file) that was negotiated and agreed upon by both political campaigns:
(c) No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate.
...
(d) Notwithstanding subparagraph 5(c), the candidates may take notes during the debate on the size, color and type of paper each side prefers. Each candidate must submit to the staff of the Commission prior to the debate all such paper and any pens or pencils with which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate, and the staff or commission will place such paper, pens and pencils on the podium, table or other structure to be used by the candidate in that debate.
As indicated by the linked video (fullscreen mode is very compelling), John Kerry clearly removes what look like note cards or papers from his right jacket pocket, and then places them on the podium at the beginning of the debate.
1. A single candidate's use of prepared notes could provide a distinct advantage in the debate, hence their mutual prohibition.
2. While the nature of the object is inconclusive based on the angle and resolution of the video, the rules clearly state that "[n]o ... tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate."
INDC Journal and the Daily Recycler aren't going to hyperventilate and claim that this violation influenced the outcome of the first debate, but it's certainly reasonable to request that the rules are followed by the Kerry Campaign and enforced by the Debate Commission for the remaining two contests.
Regardless of what he brought, he broke the rules
I can't believe the arrogance and lack of credibility this guy has. These aren't lies. Fox News played the entire video and it is obvious he took something out of his jacket pocket. You can try to dismiss this as no big deal, but What you do when you think no one is looking defines who you are. Kerry is well defined a flip-flop with no credibility. You can lie all you want about Bush on things you can't prove so people can't challenge you, but the video doesn't lie, just Kerry.
Posted by: JD at October 4, 2004 12:21 AM
So much for your precious Newsweek poll
10/2/2004: Newsweek Poll: Stacked?
Look at the makeup of Republicans vs. Democrats in Newsweek’s poll from September 11, 2004: NEWSWEEK POLL: Campaign 2004.
391 Republicans (plus or minus 6)
300 Democrats (plus or minus 7)
270 Independents (plus or minus 7)
Compare against the same data from the new poll, which Newsweek is using to claim that Bush’s poll lead has “evaporated:” NEWSWEEK POLL: First Presidential Debate.
345 Republicans (plus or minus 6)
364 Democrats (plus or minus 6)
278 Independents (plus or minus 7)
Did Newsweek choose a lower percentage of Republicans for the first debate to set up Kerry’s “comeback,” or did they stack the deck with more Democrats in the second poll?
Source: Little Green Footballs Blog
Posted by: JD at October 4, 2004 12:26 AM
Great observation from British Columnist Mark Steyn.
"Bush seems to communicate pretty clearly. He communicates the reality of the post-9/11 world, a world where you can't afford to err on the side of multilateral consensus and Hague-approved legalisms and transatlantic chit-chatting and tentativeness and faintheartedness about the projection of American power in America's interest.
A majority of the American people -- albeit not as big a majority as it ought to be -- get this. John Kerry still does not. Which means he lost the debate. He got a technical win on points from the pundits, but this election won't be won on points. It's primal. The pundits keep missing this. They thought Kerry was good in the debate, just as he was good in his convention speech, because on both occasions he was tactically artful. But that's not going to cut it. We're post-Clinton: you can't triangulate your way to victory."
The actual things Kerry said in the debate will begin to be thought about and reported on the web and the truth of who Kerry is - Wrong on the war, wrong on how to best lead our country will come out.
Posted by: JD at October 4, 2004 12:37 AM
The Republician moto is - Moving America Forward!!
Nice Postive message
The Democrat moto is Taking back America????
Talk about negative - just who are you taking back America from? answer: AMERICIANS
VOTE BUSH/CHENEY
Posted by: NC says no to Edwards at October 4, 2004 01:46 AM
Chris,
Sorry but you're very mistaken if you think that having allies mean that they have to do everything we want to do. Having allies doesn't mean that at all---you still have to convince them that they should behave in a certain way for their own benefit. That's really what leadership is all about. A leader can do that kind of convincing whereas someone who is not a leader will fail to do it. A leader is never a bully but one who leads and other naturally follow. Face facts---that this never happened with George W. Bush only means that he is not a leader.
As for the Oil for Food scandal, that is only now being investigated. I have no knowledge on the guilt or innocence on the part of anyone. Do you? Why do you bring this issue up?
You're are also mistaken to connect 9/11 with Iraq. It has been shown time and time again that there never was any connection. Why do you still want to make a connection? Ossama bin Laden planned all this from Afghanistan. Why can't you understand this? Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 and even your buddy George W. Bush has finally admitted that. What's holding you up?
Saddam was contributing money to the suicide bombers in Palestine and these people are not considered Terrorists in the same vain as are the Terrorists from Afghanistan. There is a difference. The Palestinians are fighting the Israelis trying to get them out of Palestine. We invented Israel in 1947 and situated it in Palestine and some Palestinians didn't like it.
As for "fueling" our enemies because we disagree, that's really crazy for you to say that. We have every right as Americans to disagree with our government when it's out of control the way it is right now. Face it, George W. Bush is out of control and apparently doesn't realize what he's doing.
George W. Bush has given away billions of our surplus money as tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans who had the least need for money and our country is now on huge amounts of deficit spending while our national debt is running into the trillions. George W. Bush is recklessly spending our tax money causing our children's children to become responsible for its payment and that's not right.
You say, "You have no proof that there was no al-Queda in Iraq at the time that the US invaded." Well, I can say the same thing, "You have no proof that there were al-Queda in Iraq at the time that the US invaded." We can say that al-Queda came to Iraq after Saddam was ejected simply because it's well known that Saddam and the Terrorists of bin Laden were enemies. So it's more likely that the Terrorist came to Iraq after we ejected Saddam out of power.
As for Saddam firing at our airplanes, yes that was happening while we were patrolling Iraq's Northern's as well as its Southern's "No Fly Zones," while our UN inspectors were roaming the rest of Iraq looking for WMDs. Face it, we had better control of Iraq then, than we do now. George W. Bush screwed things up when he invaded Iraq and that's all there is to it. You need to learn to face facts.
Your POST follows:
"Abel, France did not support the U.N. resolutions to take action against Hussein so they are not are allies. They were also involved in the oil for food scandal.
Based on 9/11 I still would rather the war be fought over there.
D., I never said they conspired together for 9/11 specifically just said they are connected. Saddam has given money to homicide bombers' families. That is a connection.
JM: I never said you were not American. I consider you to be ignorant because you give our enemies fuel, not because you disagree.
You have no proof that there was no al-Queda in Iraq at the time that the US invaded. Saddam was a strong dictator who didn't allow any monkey business. Yes, there was terror by Saddam against his own population. We went to Iraq because everyone including Kerry, Clinton, Albright, the UN perceived Saddam as a threat. I don't doubt that a terrorist act will not happen here again. They only have to be right once. We are doing a fine job so far. Results speak volumes. You don't know that Iraq could have been dealt with after Osama was captured in Afganistan. What is your security clearance? Couldn't that have waited a little?!!!! We waited 8 years for him to comply!!!!!! You don't know if Saddam was going to attack the US. He was shooting at our pilots.
Bush has alienated many of our friends??? What friends?????
You do give the Muslims more resolve to fight every day.
It is not ignorant to stand on the side of our Commander and Chief during wartime.
You are arrogant to think that the U.S could never fall and my point is you curse the same country that gives you the freedom to do so."
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 3, 2004 08:01 PM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 4, 2004 02:08 AM
Chris,
Well, when I was in the military I had Top Secret clearance but now that I'm a civilian, it's higher than that. I have already given my answer regarding Saddam Hussein and that he presented no imminent danger to us. Even you could've figured that out. Saddam couldn't even control his own country so how could he present an imminent danger to us, the most powerful country in the world?
Listen, it's common knowledge that we trained Saddam Hussein and that we paid him out of our CIA funds. Look it up, visit web site below:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r
Yes, Saddam was a mean SOB but he was our SOB since about 1959 and he did only what we told him to do. He was our main man in Iraq. We began to have problems with him when he invaded Kuwait. He thought he had our permission but there was some miscommunication and George HW Bush got our old allies together and we kicked him out of there. Let me add that George HW Bush was a real leader and I was plenty happy with him as were most Americans.
Your POST follows:
"Abel, I am going to ask you one more time what is your security clearance that you were so sure he was not a threat? The whole world including Clinton said he was. Where have you been the last 12 years. As for us supporting Iraq in the past. Things change for the good of our national interests. We now have allies like Japan and Britain but if they were on the wrong side that could change again too.
Stop trying to justify Saddam Hussein, he killed, raped and mutilated his own people."
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 3, 2004 08:25 PM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 4, 2004 02:26 AM
It is hard to get a word in edge wise. So many post by so few people have never been so wrong so many time. Must be a record. Now to my point.
JM
I am not talking about you sir, but some where way up in the posts for Oct 3, you relished in just a few word you credited to Bruce Springsten. America is not alway right. I will settle for most of the time and alway if we are talking about out national interests. No person or group of persons are right 100% of the time but I will take our track record and match it against any country in the world now or for that matter in all of recorded history. I am proud to be an Amarican and so should you. We are a great country and can continue with good leadership, G.W. Bush is that leader a proven leader. Thanks.
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at October 4, 2004 03:28 AM
P & L,
I repeat as Bush has had to repeat, because you people ignore the facts.
The U.N., Clinton, Albright, Kerry, Edwards all came to the same conclusion and it had nothing to do with Bush. They knew the threat was there and now they have an agenda so they are blaming Bush. Fact, Kerry is playing both sides of the fence. He even did so during the debate. You can't have it both ways.
Abel,
The U.N. resolutions and Congress gave Bush the legal right to invade Iraq. He failed to comply with the UN. resolutions.
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 4, 2004 07:55 AM
Chris,
Sorry but you're wrong again. That Saddam failed to comply with any UN resolutions was never an issue. Give me a break! Many countries fail to comply with UN resolutions all the time and we don't go around invading them. Israel does that all the time--fail to comply with UN resolutions and we have never seriously considered invading Israel, have we?
Bush made a request before the UN prior to his invasion of Iraq trying to convince the UN to allow for the invasion of Iraq but when he saw that the UN was prepared to vote NO! on the matter, he withdrew the request and proceeded with his invasion of Iraq.
The UN wanted us to wait until after its UN inspectors got through with its task of looking for WMDs. The UN also believed that Saddam didn't present anyone with any kind of "imminent" threat or danger. In fact, not even Iraq's neighbors were concerned about Saddam. Why? Because Saddam's military had been almost completely destroyed during George HW Bush's war to kick Iraq out of Kuwait.
Face it, George W. Bush had no business attacking Iraq before the UN finished looking for WMDs. As I understand it now, George W. Bush thought it would be a political advantage for him to become a "War President." With dummy people like you, perhaps he was right on that point.
Your condensed POST follows:
"Abel, The U.N. resolutions and Congress gave Bush the legal right to invade Iraq. He failed to comply with the UN. resolutions."
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 4, 2004 07:55 AM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 4, 2004 11:52 AM
Abel,
Saddam ceased to be our ally when he invaded Kuwait.
Hitler left unchecked would have eventually been a threat to us directly.
The connection is not with 9/11 it is with Al Queda. Stop twisting my word you Democrat.
Tommy Franks had security clearance on the ground in Iraq and he supports the President. You were not in the war room when they made the decision to enforce the U.N. resolutions. By the way you are naive to think that our so called allies did not have alterior motives for not taking down Saddam. With all due respect your clearance does not mean much right now. And if it did, you could not discuss it.
GWH Bush was a great leader but that was pre 9/11. Do we wait for a threat to materialize? Abel you and I will never see eye to eye on this issue. That is the crux of it. I believe that Bush did the right thing and The U.N., Clinton, Albright, Kerry, Edwards all came to the same conclusion and they did not hold him accountable. They knew the threat was there and now they have an agenda so they are blaming Bush. Fact, Kerry is playing both sides of the fence. He even did so during the debate. You can't have it both ways.
Our enemies do get resolve from the disrespect you give the office of the Prsident of the United States. The terrorists are using our division to encourage their own.
Tax breaks are fueling the economy and are for everyone so I can donate to worthy causes not broken social programs involuntarily.
Let's look at the facts: We marched to Bahgdad quicker than anyone expected. We have fewer casualties than any other major wars. Saddam is in jail. No terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11. Our economy is improving after:
a recession (started before Bush was in)
a terrorist attack
corporate scandals left unchecked by the previous administration.
Bush is doing fine.
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 4, 2004 12:10 PM
Check out http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200410/SPE20041004a.html
According to this article, 42 pages of documents from Iraq not only prove that Saddam had the weapons as late as 2000, but was stepping up his pursuit of chemical weapons and his plan to use them. It also profiles extensive terrorist training activities in Iraq.
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 4, 2004 12:10 PM
No terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11. Our economy is improving after:
a recession (started before Bush was in)
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 4, 2004 12:10 PM
Chris,
Has it ever dawned on you that there was no major terrorist attacks of the 911 magnitude on American soil before Bush was in office? Why was Osama family escorted out of the Country if Bush had no plans to capture him? Was Saadam an easier target? Bush is doing horrible and will lose the Presidency. I am certain of it at this point. I respect your opinions, but when people start disecting the polls, downgrading the Senator for speaking what he belives in simply to satisfy the Bush agenda that over 50% of American dont agree with. I don't think thats fair. I spoke with a democratic Texas State Representative this morning and found out she feels as I do about issues like the War, Jobs and the Economy. The reason for the telephone call is that she wanted me to display a sign in my front yard for her support. I couldn't do that if I didn't know excatly how she felt on the issues. The economy shouldn't be still in recovery process, it should completely covered at this point, and we are faced with the potential of more international conflicts. the latest CBS poll shows the candidates at at dead tie. I guess that will be disected as well. This poll attacking only happens when Senator Kerry is favored over Bush. When Bush lead the polls after the RNC, I simply didn't mention them as opposed to disecting them to favor Kerry's agenda over Bush or Republicans.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004 We Will Win
Posted by: d. jones at October 4, 2004 02:56 PM
All have a Blessed day. Got to run.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 4, 2004 02:56 PM
To all of "you" Republicans:
What is it with you people? Only Republicans can love America? Get real you bunch of pseudo- patriots. I am glad that I live in America because I can speak my mind whenever I want. You don't like the fact that I support John Kerry? I do not care what you think! There is an obvious disconnect in your thinking process! I hope that Kerry wins and you people that spout this conservative BS have to suffer for four years of a Democratic presidency just like we Democrats have had to put up with the sleazy Republican presidency the past four years. Al Gore won, but through sleaze tactics, we ended up with dumb and dumber.
Posted by: JM at October 4, 2004 04:06 PM
d.jones,
Do you deny posting the same exact comments as JM? Do you really want to be caught in yet another lie? Why don't you let your other personality, JM, speak up?
Posted by: Wayne at October 4, 2004 05:21 PM
wpnsgy,
You are the moron, wpnsgy. You say, "Bush did not need Iraq to be a war President it was forced on him by 9/11." How many times do people have to tell you that there was absolutely no connection between Saddam's Iraq and the Ossama bin Laden's terrorists who attacked us on 9/11!
Frankly, George W. Bush would've become a successful leader had he stayed focused on his justified war in Afghanistan. Perhaps he would've gotten bin Laden by now and he'd even be a hero but he had to go and screw everything up by illegally invading Iraq.
There never was a connection between Saddam and the terrorists who attacked us in 9/11. Even your beloved George W. Bush understands that, he said so during the debate. What's wrong with you and your other HH pro-Bushite friends, why can't you understand that?
You joke---saying, "Oh yeah and he is going to get new allies by telling them hey I have a colassal mistake on my hands come help me out LOL." Well surprise, surprise, people will come to your aid and help you when you're honest with them and tell them the truth but I guess you wouldn't know anything about that.
Believe it or not, I'm about ready to give up on you HH pro-Bushites. You refuse to see reality and I'm simply not going to worry about people who would listen to you. I figure that anyone who would listen to you would have to be as dumb as you.
Your really dumb POST follows:
"Abel you are posting moronic statements again in your post you say Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted to be a war president for some reason. It is apparent that you have forgotten about 9/11 and the Afghan war. Bush did not need Iraq to be a war President it was forced on him by 9/11. Bush could have ignored Iraq and would probably popular as hell right now but a threat was at hand and he did his job and did not worry about his popularity. Can you Kerry supporters explain how Kerry can say it would be reckless and irresponsible to vote against the 87 billion funding bill then a few days later vote against it? Or when he said of Dean that anyone that does not believe the US is safer with out Sadam then he does not have the judgement to be president now he is saying the war was wrong a colossal mistake. Oh yeah and he is going to get new allies by telling them hey I have a colassal mistake on my hands come help me out LOL He is the one that will not face reality France and Germany have already said no troops no matter who is president"
Posted by: wpnsgy at October 4, 2004 12:18 AM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 4, 2004 05:36 PM
Chris,
You say, "The connection is not with 9/11 it is with Al Queda. Stop twisting my word you Democrat." Well, for your information, it was Al Queda who attacked us on 9/11.
You tell me, "Tommy Franks had security clearance on the ground in Iraq and he supports the President." Don't you know that the President is the Commander In Chief and that Tommy Franks is only a General? The President out ranks any General anytime. You should know that too!
You also say, "By the way you are naive to think that our so called allies did not have alterior motives for not taking down Saddam." Frankly, I never thought that, I have always known that other countries have ulterior motives too, just like we do.
I only have one final question, "Who's telling you all this crap that you're passing on to me?" Whoever is, is mentally messed up. Tell whomever is that I said that, will you? Tell them that they are mentally messed up. Oh yes, one more thing, my civilian "security clearance" is as high as it needs to be and I can discuss anything I want. Why? Well, lets just begin by saying that I'm over 18 years of age.
Your condensed POST follows:
"Abel, Saddam ceased to be our ally when he invaded Kuwait.
Hitler left unchecked would have eventually been a threat to us directly.
The connection is not with 9/11 it is with Al Queda. Stop twisting my word you Democrat.
Tommy Franks had security clearance on the ground in Iraq and he supports the President. You were not in the war room when they made the decision to enforce the U.N. resolutions. By the way you are naive to think that our so called allies did not have alterior motives for not taking down Saddam. With all due respect your clearance does not mean much right now. And if it did, you could not discuss it.
GWH Bush was a great leader but that was pre 9/11. Do we wait for a threat to materialize? Abel you and I will never see eye to eye on this issue. That is the crux of it. I believe that Bush did the right thing and The U.N., Clinton, Albright, Kerry, Edwards all came to the same conclusion and they did not hold him accountable. They knew the threat was there and now they have an agenda so they are blaming Bush. Fact, Kerry is playing both sides of the fence. He even did so during the debate. You can't have it both ways.
Our enemies do get resolve from the disrespect you give the office of the Prsident of the United States. The terrorists are using our division to encourage their own.
Tax breaks are fueling the economy and are for everyone so I can donate to worthy causes not broken social programs involuntarily.
Let's look at the facts: We marched to Bahgdad quicker than anyone expected. We have fewer casualties than any other major wars. Saddam is in jail. No terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11. Our economy is improving after:
a recession (started before Bush was in)
a terrorist attack
corporate scandals left unchecked by the previous administration.
Bush is doing fine.
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 4, 2004 12:10 PM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 4, 2004 06:10 PM
grassssssssssssspp! BUSH BACKERS OF AMERICA! KEEP ON GRASPING! IT IS SO FUNNY WATCHING THE BUSH 04 CAMPAIGN UNRAVEL!
Posted by: Louis (5751Canton, Ohio) at October 4, 2004 06:53 PM
D. Jones,
Of course I disagree with your comments. Armchair quarterbacks always have the last word. Our economy is on the right track and I am pleased as is most hardworking Amercians. Some are out of work and I feel for them, nut my experience has always been I can find work if I want it, even if it is self employment. Hey I was on my way to a business meeting today with my wife and saw a Kerry sign outside a stripclub. I guess that his base. HA,HA!!
Seriously D., both you and I know, Things could change drastically either way with polls. Bush could have closed the deal in the first debate and he didn't, but I believe in the core values of the Republican Party. Protect the unborn, Marriage is between a man and a woman, we need a strong military to deter our enemies and I earned my money and I know how to spend it better than the government, especially when it come to helping my neighbor.
Abel,
It seems I struck a nerve. You are a little defensive.
You still don't get the point or you refuse to see the point. The point is after 9/11 we don't wait for a threat to materialize and it was the opinion of the U.N., Clinton, Albright, Kerry, Edwards and our so-called allies and they did not hold him accountable. They knew the threat was there and now they have an agenda so they are blaming Bush. Fact, Kerry is playing both sides of the fence. He even did so during the debate. You can't have it both ways.
With regards to your second point, WHAT???? My point is Tommy Franks knew what was going on in Iraq, better than you and the rest of the folks doing the armchair quarterbacking.
Let's talk about our motives. We are the most generous country in the world. We have freed 10 million people to vete in the Afghanistan election and although it is an uphill battle, the Iraqis have a chance at freedom. I will match our motives up against any other country in the world. We are not perfect but I suggest you try living somewhere else if you think this is bad. Why don't you try a dictatorship where your opinion doesn't count. I suggest you stop whining about how bad we are and start appreciating the freedoms you and your comrades seem to abuse.
See the following:
Remarkably, the "Top Ten Reasons" of the Communist party are identical to those of the Democratic party; out-sourcing, homosexual rights, abortion and the like.
At first, I thought "this is only a coincidence." The Democratic party of the United States couldn't be in lock step with the Marxists! So, I wrote to a spokesman of the CPUSA in Georgia and here is part of his letter:
" The CPUSA supports the John Kerry campaign with donations and volunteer effort. We believe that defeating George Bush is the single most important issue this November ..."
Next, I discovered that one of Kerry's campaign themes is " Let America be America Again." This slogan was borrowed from a Communist poet, Langston Hughes. This is not common knowledge to the average American. "
A post on www.freerepublic.com
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/561/1/27/
Check the web pages out. Alot people don't make the connection. The Democratic party leans way left.
Goodnight comrade.
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 4, 2004 09:33 PM
Wanted to correct a mistatement made in a earlier post Tommy Franks is now retired and was free to endorse whom ever he wanted. He went with Bush.
Posted by: wpnsgy at October 4, 2004 10:53 PM
grassssssssssssspp! BUSH BACKERS OF AMERICA! KEEP ON GRASPING! IT IS SO FUNNY WATCHING THE BUSH 04 CAMPAIGN UNRAVEL!
Posted by: Louis (5751Canton, Ohio) at October 4, 2004 06:53 PM
louis
President Bush'e campaign is alive and well, he will win big in November. This country will vote for a leader in this day and time. JFK has no chance. Vote for President Bush. Thank You.
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at October 4, 2004 11:58 PM
You go Abel!!! Don't let Chris get away with anything!
Posted by: JM at October 5, 2004 12:12 AM
JM,
I liked your POST so much that I just had to write to tell you and complement you. You are telling it like it is and the Hero Hating (HH) pro-Busites can't stand it. I call them Hero Haters because they can't stand the fact that Senator John Kerry is a Vietnam War Hero while their candidate, George W. Bush is nothing more than a dumb cowardly draft dodger who stole his way into the White House.
Frankly, I simply cannot understand why they like him so much---Bush will no doubt go down in History as having been the worst President ever.
George W. Bush lies consistently to the American people. Too bad these Republicans control all three branches of government because their man Bush really deserves to get impeached like yesterday. Immediately would not be soon enough!
Your POST follows--I hope all HH pro-Bushites read it:
To all of "you" Republicans:
What is it with you people? Only Republicans can love America? Get real you bunch of pseudo- patriots. I am glad that I live in America because I can speak my mind whenever I want. You don't like the fact that I support John Kerry? I do not care what you think! There is an obvious disconnect in your thinking process! I hope that Kerry wins and you people that spout this conservative BS have to suffer for four years of a Democratic presidency just like we Democrats have had to put up with the sleazy Republican presidency the past four years. Al Gore won, but through sleaze tactics, we ended up with dumb and dumber.
Posted by: JM at October 4, 2004 04:06 PM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 5, 2004 01:54 AM
wpnsgy aka Bu** Wipe, you don't have a clue what your talking about. You make a better sneaky pervert than one who has any type of valid reason to support Bush.
Vote: Kerry/Ewards 2004/2008
Posted by: d. jones at October 5, 2004 03:57 AM
JD,
I thought that President Bush did the same things with taking notes. I also thought that I had read something about both candidates having to agree on what pen would be available to use. Therefore, I am wondering what the purpose of your post was. If you are going to cry, do it over a beer.
Posted by: JM at October 5, 2004 09:54 AM
Right back at ya, Abel!
Hey Wayne,
Grow up! Your are real immature.
Posted by: JM at October 5, 2004 09:57 AM
To all you Kerry lovers
Notice how fewer and fewer people are posting here because d. jones, JM and Abel are all the same person who is monopolizing the blog with their hatred. It's A BIG TURN OFF!!
Can you complete a sentence without hurling an insult because someone disagrees with your warped (and that's putting it mildly) view of the world?
IF you think your postings are gaining votes for the Dems - think again!!
I would have to say that your lunatic rantings show people the kind of person who would vote for the likes of Kerry.
YOU LOSE - LANDSLIDE FOR BUSH!!
Posted by: Calamity JAne at October 5, 2004 04:30 PM
JM,
I was talking to d.jones but you apparently did not change your name and answered for him/you. It gets rather confusing using two names, doesn't it?
Well, keep up the bashing and name calling.
Posted by: Wayne at October 5, 2004 07:57 PM
d jokes once agian attacks because he has no facts a loser just like Kerry.
Posted by: wpnsgy at October 5, 2004 08:30 PM
JM , Abel,
You were right about one thing....If Kerry were to win we would "have to suffer for four years of a Democratic presidency ". All of us would. Very well put.
Goodnight comrades.
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 5, 2004 11:24 PM
Chris, OH,
Yes, you did strike a nerve. I had no idea I was writing to a nut. I try to not waste my time doing that. My main point before was that it has never been our country's policy to invade countries that haven't harmed us. Saddam and Iraq never harmed us in any way and they were never in any position to harm us. George W. Bush lied to the American people to scare us into thinking that we were in imminent danger.
After reading your crazy POST, however, I have decided that you are a nut and I'm not going to bother answering you crazy and misguided allegations. So, I'll just say, have a good day and good luck to you.
Your crazy POST follows:
"Abel, It seems I struck a nerve. You are a little defensive.
You still don't get the point or you refuse to see the point. The point is after 9/11 we don't wait for a threat to materialize and it was the opinion of the U.N., Clinton, Albright, Kerry, Edwards and our so-called allies and they did not hold him accountable. They knew the threat was there and now they have an agenda so they are blaming Bush. Fact, Kerry is playing both sides of the fence. He even did so during the debate. You can't have it both ways.
With regards to your second point, WHAT???? My point is Tommy Franks knew what was going on in Iraq, better than you and the rest of the folks doing the armchair quarterbacking.
Let's talk about our motives. We are the most generous country in the world. We have freed 10 million people to vete in the Afghanistan election and although it is an uphill battle, the Iraqis have a chance at freedom. I will match our motives up against any other country in the world. We are not perfect but I suggest you try living somewhere else if you think this is bad. Why don't you try a dictatorship where your opinion doesn't count. I suggest you stop whining about how bad we are and start appreciating the freedoms you and your comrades seem to abuse.
See the following:
Remarkably, the "Top Ten Reasons" of the Communist party are identical to those of the Democratic party; out-sourcing, homosexual rights, abortion and the like.
At first, I thought "this is only a coincidence." The Democratic party of the United States couldn't be in lock step with the Marxists! So, I wrote to a spokesman of the CPUSA in Georgia and here is part of his letter:
" The CPUSA supports the John Kerry campaign with donations and volunteer effort. We believe that defeating George Bush is the single most important issue this November ..."
Next, I discovered that one of Kerry's campaign themes is " Let America be America Again." This slogan was borrowed from a Communist poet, Langston Hughes. This is not common knowledge to the average American. "
A post on www.freerepublic.com
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/561/1/27/
Check the web pages out. Alot people don't make the connection. The Democratic party leans way left.
Goodnight comrade."
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 4, 2004 09:33 PM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 6, 2004 12:00 AM
Calamity JAne,
Give us a break!!! Why don't you wait until the fat lady sings before you "YOU LOSE - LANDSLIDE FOR BUSH" us. Why do you hate it so much when you see us writing the truth? Why does the truth bother you so much? You HH pro-Bushites make it a practice to lie and yet, we still tolerate you. Why don't you try to do the same with us? Aren't you a "uniter" too, like GW?
Your condensed POST follows:
"To all you Kerry lovers Notice how fewer and fewer people are posting here because d. jones, JM and Abel are all the same person who is monopolizing the blog with their hatred. It's A BIG TURN OFF!!
Can you complete a sentence without hurling an insult because someone disagrees with your warped (and that's putting it mildly) view of the world?
IF you think your postings are gaining votes for the Dems - think again!!
I would have to say that your lunatic rantings show people the kind of person who would vote for the likes of Kerry.
YOU LOSE - LANDSLIDE FOR BUSH!!"
Posted by: Calamity JAne at October 5, 2004 04:30 PM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 6, 2004 12:24 AM
Calamity Jane:
Right back at you. I think it has more to do with all of you Kerry haters. It must bother you tremendously that we refuse to let you get away with it. Oh well...
Posted by: JM at October 6, 2004 12:36 AM
Calamity Jane:
You show the calibre of who will be voting for George Bush and its not a pretty picture. I have a dunce hat waiting here for you.
Posted by: JM at October 6, 2004 12:38 AM
Can you complete a sentence without hurling an insult because someone disagrees with your warped (and that's putting it mildly) view of the world?
Posted by: Calamity JAne at October 5, 2004 04:30 PM
Calamity,
Can you wear a wig that doesn't look like a warped rats nest? If people are not posting it's because they are sick of you. You are stupid, dumb, un-informed, and you smell like a horse. That would run anyone off.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 6, 2004 01:28 AM
d. jones, JM, and other Kerry supporters who replied to my posting:
Do you ever look at yourselves? Look at the venom in your postings?
Posted by: Calamity JAne at October 6, 2004 11:55 AM
d.jones: That's putting it mildly!!!!
I chuckle when I read some of these posts. You are funny. Abel is good at refuting the Redumblican BS. Louis is a scrapper. Peace + love has a temper, but he (or she) puts a lot of time into his or her posts.
I see all of the garbage that is thrown our way. When we throw it back, it really bothers them. They remind me of fire ants. You step on them and they come out of the nest and attack for the sake of attacking. They are protecting their Republican nest with a lot of ignorant comments. Some of the people do write well thought out posts like Jim Rodkey, Christina (a faith viewpoint) and Kathy, but it doesn't mean that I agree with them. Sometimes they will post something that I can find common ground with, though. They are under the impression that all Democrats are liberals. What a scarey word that liberal word is!!! That is so 1990's. They live in a time warp.
Calamity Janes' handle fits her perfectly. Calamity Jane drank heavily and wore mens clothes! The heavy drinking has affected her mind. I forgive her for that.
Posted by: JM at October 6, 2004 12:34 PM
Abel can't answer to the facts. Abel I am not a nut. I am someone who believes in accountability. If you don't want to respond that's fine. I will continue to hold you accountable for you emotional arguments that are laced with biased misinformation. Good luck to you sir.
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 6, 2004 01:36 PM
D.Jones,
Your last comment about Calamity does not represent your Church well. Just thought I would remind you that as a brother.
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 6, 2004 05:49 PM
Chris,
You like the word emotional, don't you? You have a broad definition of the word.
Posted by: JM at October 6, 2004 07:14 PM
Calamity Jane:
You get what you give. You and your blogger friends think it is ok to rip into John Kerry. I think it is time that George Bush and his supporters get the same treatment. I will answer every attempt to denigrate John Kerry's reputation with the same language as a detractor has used. If it is ok to do it in one direction, then expect it to be hurled back at you.
Some of what is said is in jest, but obviously you don't take it that way. I think that most people can decipher what is truly nasty and what is just someone trying to get under someone else's skin.
Posted by: JM at October 6, 2004 07:21 PM
Chris, OH
I thought that I explained to you that I never waste my time writing to crazy people. Talk about mis-information--that's exactly what you are doing. As far as I'm concerned, you sir, are a total and complete nut.
You know, I have been very critical of the HH pro-Bushite Republicans but you are even worse than they are. You should be ashamed of yourself to the point that you may also be considered to be "un-American."
Review my POSTs to you and you'll see that I have already responded regarding some of your crazy allegations. My point is that it doesn't make sense for me to continue to repeat my responses and have you begin to make some loose allegations about Democrats.
Frankly I'm not interested regarding who individually or as a group chooses to support our candidates. I don't go around looking to see which individuals and/or groups chooses to support the Republican Party either. For example, I recognize that the Republicans cannot help it if the far right fringes supports them. Well, the same thing is true if the far left fringes supports our party. You must know that we're having problems with our far-left friend Ralph Nader who is helping George W. Bush when we wish he wouldn't.
Even your statement that "Abel can't answer to the facts." is a lie. You are obviously ignorant of what a fact is. To conclude, unless you write good logical and sensible POSTs, I will stop responding to them. Straighten yourself up if you wish to continue discussing your ideas about events and/or the Democratic Party.
Your last POST to me follows:
"Abel can't answer to the facts. Abel I am not a nut. I am someone who believes in accountability. If you don't want to respond that's fine. I will continue to hold you accountable for you emotional arguments that are laced with biased misinformation. Good luck to you sir."
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 6, 2004 01:36 PM
Your first POST to me follows:
"Abel, It seems I struck a nerve. You are a little defensive.
You still don't get the point or you refuse to see the point. The point is after 9/11 we don't wait for a threat to materialize and it was the opinion of the U.N., Clinton, Albright, Kerry, Edwards and our so-called allies and they did not hold him accountable. They knew the threat was there and now they have an agenda so they are blaming Bush. Fact, Kerry is playing both sides of the fence. He even did so during the debate. You can't have it both ways.
With regards to your second point, WHAT???? My point is Tommy Franks knew what was going on in Iraq, better than you and the rest of the folks doing the armchair quarterbacking.
Let's talk about our motives. We are the most generous country in the world. We have freed 10 million people to vete in the Afghanistan election and although it is an uphill battle, the Iraqis have a chance at freedom. I will match our motives up against any other country in the world. We are not perfect but I suggest you try living somewhere else if you think this is bad. Why don't you try a dictatorship where your opinion doesn't count. I suggest you stop whining about how bad we are and start appreciating the freedoms you and your comrades seem to abuse.
See the following:
Remarkably, the "Top Ten Reasons" of the Communist party are identical to those of the Democratic party; out-sourcing, homosexual rights, abortion and the like.
At first, I thought "this is only a coincidence." The Democratic party of the United States couldn't be in lock step with the Marxists! So, I wrote to a spokesman of the CPUSA in Georgia and here is part of his letter:
" The CPUSA supports the John Kerry campaign with donations and volunteer effort. We believe that defeating George Bush is the single most important issue this November ..."
Next, I discovered that one of Kerry's campaign themes is " Let America be America Again." This slogan was borrowed from a Communist poet, Langston Hughes. This is not common knowledge to the average American. "
A post on www.freerepublic.com
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/561/1/27/
Check the web pages out. Alot people don't make the connection. The Democratic party leans way left.
Goodnight comrade."
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 4, 2004 09:33 PM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 6, 2004 08:00 PM
JM/d.jones,
Don't you feel funny posting to yourself?
Posted by: Wayne at October 6, 2004 09:48 PM
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 6, 2004 01:36 PM
Chris,
I will continue to hold you accountable for being a idiot. You would almost have to be paid by the RNC or as JM states a small business owner somehow profiting from Bush's reign of terror. I remember explaining to Chris that Teresa Heinz Kerry inherited the Heinz Corporation fortune from her husband, sold off her shares in the company thus having nothing to do with the current outsourcing by Heinz. She owns less than 4%. She has no power. The Heinz Corporation is run by a Republican CEO that contributed millions of dollars to the Republican Party. Yet, for some reason you act as if you can't or don't want to know and understand the truth. Calamity throws so much hatred and nasty remaks towards Kerry supporters and Democrats as a whole that it is unbelievable, as it has the nerve to talk down to anyone. Kerry is supported by, Independents, Republicans as well as Democrats. Kerry haters are aware of this. This is why I feel they must be involved in some type of Republican compensation, or some type of school/college academic Republican debate project. No one could be that dumb in the 21st Century! I inject humor in my posts to keep from simply cursing these people out for being so stupid. My fight is for all decent Americans that have faith in America, not religious fanatics who feel everyone is going to hell without forgiveness for sin, my fight is for the dead American soldiers fighting a Country that never attacked America, my fight is for the dead Children in Iraq, my fight is for the dead Haliburton workers risking everything they own to seek employment to feed their familys, my fight is for the poor that only see more poverty in the future. The last people in my post are dead, and don't have the ability to speak for themselves, their family's are left without support from a corrupt Government that wouldn't give a rusty nickle for their lives and families. The dead American get a flag drapped coffin, and are called a patriot. That is supposed to be a cure all from a Administration filled with lies and mistakes. For many that simply isn't enough. Kerry will win this election because Americans are fed up with flagged drapped coffin's, lies by the current Administration, and poor people running around like nuts without any hope, and armed with the legal right to carry automatic weapons. They are fed up with being snubbed by the upper class, and as history tells us, they will never give up. What is happening to equality?
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 6, 2004 10:31 PM
Are you Kerry supporters completely devoid of reality?
The only people doing name calling on the forum are d. jones, JM, Abel (although not as often). People are called ignorant, dummies, stupid, etc. It is incredible to me that I am accused of being a drunk when you know nothing about me but simply judge me based on a forum name and that our views of the world are different.
I have read many posts on this forum and people like Jim Rodkey, Chris OH and Wayne, Navy Vet, Christina and others are usually polite and informative. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for some of the others.
Posted by: Calamity Jane at October 7, 2004 11:59 AM
d.jones:
Chris' definition of outsourcing is incorrect. Just because a company has businesses in other countries doesn't mean outsourcing. Many times a company needs a presence within a country just to be able to operate and be part of the market within a particular country. I have not heard of any situation in which the Heinz company has moved jobs (outsourcing) from the US to a foreign country. If there is such a case, I am sure that Chris will point it out to us.
Posted by: JM at October 7, 2004 12:03 PM
I am a Kerry supporter. Republicans are stupid. They have no concept about what is true. I hope they lose in November.
Posted by: Wayne at October 7, 2004 12:11 PM
Abel,
Your last post justifies my response stick to the facts. You call anyone crazy that disagrees with you. You sir are the one talking in circles. You are show your true colors. Very emotional arguments.
D,
You really need to stop the name calling. After all you do go to church. As for the Heinz factor she is a shareholder and I am sure she has influence. If she was really against the outsourcing of jobs she could influence their decisions. With all the money that she pours into the Tides foundation, if she wanted it to stop it would. Anyone who works and pays taxes is keeping more of their own money because of Bush.
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 7, 2004 01:49 PM
Calamity,
Don't let this person get to you, I say "this person" because they are all the same person, you are on the right side at the right time. Bush will win by a landslide, the American people will see through all the spin and lies that the kerry campaine is spreading. I can't wait for November 2, it will be a glorious day for America when we re-elect George Bush as President.
Thank you for standing up to this thug!
Posted by: David Lowery at October 7, 2004 05:59 PM
d.,
Why don't you go back to the CPUSA blog, there where you and your alter-egos need to be. At least there you can lie all you want without worring about someone calling you to the mat for all the lies you tell.
Have a good day d.
Vote George Bush on Nov. 2!
Posted by: David Lowery at October 7, 2004 06:01 PM
Posted by: David Lowery at October 7, 2004 06:01 PM
David,
Why don't you go to hell, for calling me a thug, for the blood of American soldiers and Iraq Children on your head.
Chris,
You are dumber than a box of rocks. You think with your pocket book and personal gain, not for American citizens suffering in this country and abroad. Don't you dare preach to me about the Bible. I am a Southern Baptist and that would be a lost cause for you. Your self proclaimed Christian President curses more than anyone. Practice what you preach!
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 7, 2004 10:10 PM
am a Kerry supporter. Republicans are stupid. They have no concept about what is true. I hope they lose in November.
Posted by: Wayne at October 7, 2004 12:11 PM
I think d.jones is using my name now. I did not post this. This sounds like a dumb ass d.jones post, doesn't it?
Posted by: Wayne at October 7, 2004 10:52 PM
Emtional-defintion 5 in the Randon House Dictionary: Actuated, effected or determined by emotion rather than reason.
Under that definintion that describes the name calling and hatred spewed by you, D.,Abel and Louis. I thought the Democratic Party was the tolerant party?
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 7, 2004 11:59 PM
Wayne:
You're a Democrat and a stupid one at that! Go back to the Republican Party where you belong!
Posted by: JM at October 8, 2004 12:38 AM
Calamity:
Waaaaa. Waaaaaaa. Waaaaaa. Waaaaaa. Here's a hanky.
Posted by: JM at October 8, 2004 12:41 AM
Wayne:
Dummy. Do you see that the post that says Wayne is dated Oct. 7, 2004 at 12:11pm and that your post saying that it is not you is also dated on the same day, but at 10:52pm? How could you refute it bedore it was even originally posted?
I'll help you. It now appears that the website translates the time zones to whatever time zone that the website is set up in. Also, what makes you think that you are the only Wayne in the world? Dah!
Posted by: JM at October 8, 2004 07:52 AM
D.,
You prove my point every time. The name calling. You chastise Bush for everything but you don't hold yourself accountable. That is all I am saying. I am a Christian and while I am not perfect I try to be do what is right. I don't think with my pocketbook. I see abortion as being an abomination. I value the sanctity of marriage. I believe we should love our neighbor as ourselves. I believe I have an obligation to help my neighbor, I just don't believe in the government taking my tax dollars for abortions and gay rights advocates indoctrinating our school children. So you see I don't only think about economics. I am primarily driven by social issues.
Sister, as a brother in Christ I just ask you to stop the hate that spews from your posts and try to love your neighbor as yourself.
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 8, 2004 09:04 AM
I am a Kerry supporter. Republicans are stupid. They have no concept about what is true. I hope they lose in November.
Posted by: Wayne at October 7, 2004 12:11 PM
Wayne, you've finally seen the error of your ways. Welcome to the Democratic side, and may the force be with you! :-)
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 8, 2004 09:12 AM
Calamity Jane,
Give me a break! You say, we call you, "ignorant, dummies, stupid, etc."
I suppose now, you are also going to deny being lying "Hero Hating" pro-Bushites who are blind followers of the cowardly George W. Bush as well.
When are you HH pro-Bushites going to begin facing facts, you are worse than we are. Believe it or not, we learned from you.
Let me add that pro-Bushites can "sound" considerate and nice while telling the worst kind of lies about people but that doesn't mean they really are considerate and nice.
Your man, George W. Bush, always makes it a practice to look, sound, etc., like he's a regular nice guy while he tells the worst kind of "whoopers," about individuals. What he's really doing is "demonizing," prior to hurting individuals and that doesn't make George W. Bush a nice man.
What's really going on is that we stopped being nice after all those lies that you HH pro-Bushite Republicans were telling about John Kerry, Liberals, Labor Unions, Progressives, Democrats, etc. When you stop, we'll stop. It'll be that easy for us. We're not really like you, we're nice people---you'll see, after you stop all your lying.
Your POST follows:
"Are you Kerry supporters completely devoid of reality?
The only people doing name calling on the forum are d. jones, JM, Abel (although not as often). People are called ignorant, dummies, stupid, etc. It is incredible to me that I am accused of being a drunk when you know nothing about me but simply judge me based on a forum name and that our views of the world are different.
I have read many posts on this forum and people like Jim Rodkey, Chris OH and Wayne, Navy Vet, Christina and others are usually polite and informative. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for some of the others."
Posted by: Calamity Jane at October 7, 2004 11:59 AM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 8, 2004 12:17 PM
Once again Abel distorts the truth. Jane hit the nail on the head and when she did he hurls and insult. Abel, just the facts. At this point I would even entertain a well thought out opinion, however the dems on this sight have resorted to name calling, lies and insults. They answer with their versions of the truth and when you debate they hurl an insult. The nice thing is, they prove our point every day. Republican hqs vandalized:
the Republican Headquarters at Chambersburg and Washington Streets, and saw graffiti written all over the plate glass windows -- some swear words and something about soldiers dying.
Police are investigating vandalism at the Ohio Republican Party headquarters in Columbus, NewsChannel 4 reported.
The headquarters of the Gallatin County Republicans was vandalized early Friday morning in a crime one Republican called an "act of terror."
The Vilas County Sheriff said Thursday his deputies are still looking for vandals who trashed the Northwoods Republican headquarters. Obscene words and graphic pictures were sprayed on Republican campaign signs. The office was ransacked with shirts and hats tossed about.
BELLEVUE - The state's Bush-Cheney campaign headquarters in Bellevue were burglarized and three laptop computers containing campaign plans were stolen, Republican Party officials said Friday.
A local Republican challenger here in Ohio had signs stolen.
Not saying it has not happened to Dems, but this seems to be a trend. Intimidation won't work. It will harden our resolve. It is sad that our country has come to this and don't blame Bush because the behavior of others are not contrlled by Bush.
Jane, thanks for the kind words, stay above the fray. David keep fighting the good fight. Wayne we all know the Dems are setting you up. They are about as transparent as Kerry. Wpnsgy I agree with most of what you say except D. is not a man in my opinion. She sounds like a little spoiled girl with they way she hurls insults around.
Keep the faith conservatives. The irony is with all of the forces against him, Bush is still going to win and they just can't handle it.
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 8, 2004 01:56 PM
Chris: Pleaaaaase! And what about all of the Kerry/Edwards signs stolen from people's yards in Northwest Florida (before the hurrican). What about your state's attempt to deny some people the right to vote because of the type of stock of paper used for their registration form. I consider that to be intimidation in a different form.
You act like your posts are fact based. They are tainted by your view. You are no better than any of the others who post on this site. Just the facts, please! Give me a break.
Posted by: JM at October 8, 2004 02:06 PM
D.,
You prove my point every time. The name calling. You chastise Bush for everything but you don't hold yourself accountable.
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 8, 2004 09:04 AM
Chris,
You completely fail to realize where the real problem lies. It's not ME! I have no power to start a war, bring the American economy to its knees, pretend I am GOD and solicit followers. Your lack of understanding, or your logic is what confuses me to the point of critizism. I don't really think you are that stupid. You simply leave me speachless by some of your remarks.
Answer these questions:
Hasn't Iraq been a distraction from the fight against al Qaeda, the most dangerous threat America faces?
When will Bush finally admit to misleading the American people about the threat from Iraq?
When will Bush come clean to the American people about the current disaster in Iraq?
Why should America trust Bushs promises on Iraq after he failed to secure Afghanistan, and continue to hide the truth about it?
Why did the Bush administration deceive America about ties between Iraq and al Qaeda and ignore ties between Saudi Arabia and al Qaeda?
Why is Bush ignoring nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea?
GW JR doesn't know what he is doing, and it amazes me that you loyal Bush followers believe in this man. You follow him like a religious cult leader! I am sure you know what happens to cult leaders! Talk to you local Preacher about your religious beliefs. It's not the job of the U.S. President! "One Nation Under God" You are being a complete Bigot if you feel your God and your interpretaion of the Bible is better than my God and what my Pastor interprets to me.
There is only one God and many interpretations, and GW JR is in no way an Angel of God! Beleive That, if you refuse to believe anything else.
Now Goodbye, I have work to do! Gosh!
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 8, 2004 03:02 PM
d.jones/JM,
I can't believe that two outrageous personalities can fit into one pea brain.
Posted by: Wayne at October 8, 2004 04:15 PM
JM,
You once again pick and choose what you want to believe. I said "Not saying it has not happened to Dems, but this seems to be a trend. Intimidation won't work. It will harden our resolve. It is sad that our country has come to this and don't blame Bush because the behavior of others are not controlled by Bush." Your argument is flawed.
D,
Your questions are leading and misleading at the same time. They are not based on fact just your opinion. I disagree with the premises so I refuse to answer the questions. The problem is not just you it is with people like you who preach tolerance but slam someone who disagrees with you as being ignorant or stupid. I believe this country is heading in the right direction and we have strong leadership. Kerry has voted on the wrong side of almost every vote concerning the military and/or national security.
ie: Senator Kerry tries to paint himself as a moderate. He voted against the first Gulf War after the U.N. approved the use of force. I believe Kerry does not exhibit the qualities of strong leadership. He lacks the ability to be decisive.
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 8, 2004 11:12 PM
What more is there to say? It worries me that Americans are heavily divided. Yesterday I spoke with a South Korean who attends the same University that I do. We are both Non-tradtional students {older, with children or attended a community college before attending a four year university}. He has a optimistic impression of Americans because he believes that we are friendly and congenial people to each other and immigrants. I did not want to disillusion this man; yet, how could I not tell him the truth? We are filled with rage when we come across a person who supports the opposite candidate. Is this election about OUR COUNTRY and what is best for all of us or what is best for ourselves? Personally, I worry about small businesses, the middle class, and our children whom are our future. These candidates say they support no child left behind. Really? Children in Oregon are left behind. Truthfully, our children are in classrooms of 30 to 40 students, they cannot take their books home because the schools are afraid that if they lose them they will not be able to replace them, our teachers can barely make it on the small amount of pay they receive, and they cannot even afford to have a nurse at most of the schools. Stop living in fear! We are paralized by terrorist and what the media telling us. Vote for the man who will care for the majority of us. Do not vote for a man who would make promises he has not fulfilled. Reality check! Think about our problems (we do have problems regardless how the President spins it) and vote from reason and with compassion for all not for your self interest. This is America, "WE THE PEOPLE". Let us live up to our past reputation and come together as a union and find the best person for OUR leader.
Posted by: Jeannie Hall at October 8, 2004 11:54 PM
Chris, OH
You say, "You call anyone crazy that disagrees with you. You sir are the one talking in circles," but you are entirely wrong. I don't just call just "anyone," crazy. I may call you crazy but that's because you're special. For example, you speak of "me talking in circles" and "showing my true colors." What the Hell are you talking about?
As for me talking in circles, you forget to say where I talked in circle. Now do you understand? I cannot properly respond to you when you fail to give me sufficient information. I thought you HH pro-Bushites believed in presenting specific information. You are falling down on your responsibilities.
I have many times suggested in my POSTs that writers "copy and paste" the parts of the POST that they are talking about. Much like I do. Look below this paragraph. It's titled "Your condensed POST follows"
Your condensed POST follows:
"...Abel, Your last post justifies my response stick to the facts. You call anyone crazy that disagrees with you. You sir are the one talking in circles. You are show your true colors. Very emotional arguments..."
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 7, 2004 01:49 PM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 9, 2004 01:24 AM
Chris, OH
So lets see, Calamity Jane says, "Are you Kerry supporters completely devoid of reality?
The only people doing name calling on the forum are d. jones, JM, Abel (although not as often). People are called ignorant, dummies, stupid, etc. It is incredible to me that I am accused of being a drunk when you know nothing about me but simply judge me based on a forum name and that our views of the world are different.
I have read many posts on this forum and people like Jim Rodkey, Chris OH and Wayne, Navy Vet, Christina and others are usually polite and informative. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for some of the others.
Posted by: Calamity Jane at October 7, 2004 11:59 AM" and you obviously agree with her."
To all that, I responded, "Give me a break! You say, we call you, "ignorant, dummies, stupid, etc."
I suppose now, you are also going to deny being a lying "Hero Hating" pro-Bushites who is blind follower of the cowardly George W. Bush as well.
When are you HH pro-Bushites going to begin facing facts? You are worse than we are. Believe it or not, we learned from you.
Let me add that pro-Bushites can "sound" considerate and nice while telling the worst kind of lies about people but that doesn't mean they really are considerate and nice.
Your man, George W. Bush, always makes it a practice to look, sound, etc., like he's a regular nice guy while he tells the worst kind of "whoopers," about individuals. What he's really doing is "demonizing," prior to hurting individuals and that doesn't make George W. Bush a nice man.
What's really going on is that we stopped being nice after all those lies that you HH pro-Bushite Republicans were telling about John Kerry, Liberals, Labor Unions, Progressives, Democrats, etc. When you stop, we'll stop. It'll be that easy for us. We're not really like you, we're nice people---you'll see, after you stop all your lying."
Now you tell me, What's wrong with what I wrote? Where did I distort the truth? All I did was to tell the truth. Show me where I didn't tell the truth. Are you trying to tell me that you don't hate our American Hero John Kerry? Are you trying to tell me that you do not "demonize" people who belong to the Democratic Party? Are you trying to tell me that you do not talk badly about John Kerry, Liberals, Labor Unions, Progressives, Democrats, etc.? Hey, I know better. You are also a HH pro-Bushite Republican and all HH pro-Bushite Republicans feel the way I have described. Now give me one good reason why I should be nice to you or any other HH pro-Bushite Republican.
Your condensed POST follows:
"Once again Abel distorts the truth. Jane hit the nail on the head and when she did he hurls and insult. Abel, just the facts. At this point I would even entertain a well thought out opinion,..."
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 8, 2004 01:56 PM
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 9, 2004 01:58 AM
Wayne,
Now, why is it OK for HH pro-Bushites to be mean and disgusting with other people but not OK for other people to be mean and disgusting in return? Lets see if you can answer that question.
Your POST follows:
"d.jones/JM,
I can't believe that two outrageous personalities can fit into one pea brain.
Posted by: Wayne at October 8, 2004 04:15 PM"
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at October 9, 2004 02:04 AM
Jeannie Hall:
I couldn't have said it any better. Thank you for a well thought post.
Posted by: JM at October 9, 2004 07:46 AM
Wayne:
Since you are so immature, I don't think I will respond to your posts anymore. It's not worth the effort.
Posted by: JM at October 9, 2004 07:51 AM
Jeannie. Are you saying that the educational woes in Oregon are all the President's fault? Aren't you aware that it's is really the state's obligation to provide for education? The Federal Government sets standards in education to make education compatible between the states. Your local and state representation is supposed to the providing for the educational needs of their people. The problems you cite do not exist in Pennsylvania. Our children can not only take their books home, but our schools encourage parent child interaction on homework assignments that require the books. At a recent school board meeting the standards of the no child left behind act were discussed and explained how they have helped our local schools by having a standard to meet on a federal level and to shift economic aid to area school who are having a greater need meeting this challenge.
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at October 9, 2004 11:01 AM
Abel,
I only have to read through the above posts (and I am not going to repeat them)to see the examples of name calling and personal attacks. The problem I have with your posts specificially, is is with the insults not only to the posters but to Bush. I know too many union people who blindly follow the DNC and don't look at the big picture. Look I would respect your posts if you would just quit with the insults and stick to the facts and debate.
I am not a blind follower of Bush. I like Bush because he exhibits the leadership qualities that I admire. He is decisive. Now some would say he made the wrong decision to go to Iraq, but if you truly listen to his arguments (which I have posted the link above) you will see his rationale. Whether you agree or not that is a different story, but it it is not a matter of blind following or Bush lied. I consider that making assumptions based on biased information. The only person who truly knows if Bush lied is Bush. I suspect based on evidence that I have posted above that Bush believed intelligience just like everyone else. He saw and still sees that Saddam was a viable threat and did what he had to do based on the intelligience.
I believe in the sactity of marriage, Bush supports it. I believe in the sanctity of life. Bush supports it. I know that Kerry authorized the use of force and then voted against funding the troops. I believe that was wrong on so many diffenrent levels. Saddam was not being held accountable by our so-called allies that were mixed up in the oil for food scandal. Kerry says he can bring them to the table. I don't believe he can nor do I want them at the table. They are not our allies. While the coalition and the Iraqis have men and women being killed over in Iraq, our so-called allies are being exposed as undermining our efforts. My point is, I support my candidate because of my core values. I believe in the RNC platform and I have seen the result of the leadership under the DNC. I don't like what I see. Kerry cannot give us a clear answer on where he stands on the issues because the democratic party is splintered with different agendas, ie: Naral, NOW, homosexuals, conservative democrats, pro military democrats, anti war democrats, ETC., This puts him in a tight spot, as it did for Gore. He cannot risk losing one group over another. While Bush is in a similar situation, the majority of Bush's supporters support him because of his leadership style and his convictions. I don't agree that you leave your convictions at the door when you enter the White House and that is exactly what Kerry said he would do. Kerry said he believes in life but wants to make exceptions for the mother during a late term abortion.
See below source:
http://www.ppl.org/PPLNews_Fall2003_I.html
There is no life or health or other situation in the case of either mother or child late in pregnancy that makes abortion safer or healthier or in any way more advantageous than live delivery. Taking the life of a baby late in pregnancy is never a medical necessity (please see the wording of a petition signed by nearly 200 Presbyterian physicians below).
In addition to testimony by Presbyterian pediatricians before the General Assembly committee to which the abortion business was referred, physician Ed Ho, a member of Corona Presbyterian Church in Denver, presented the committee with a petition signed by nearly 200 Presbyterian physicians. The most pertient wording of the petition is:
We, the undersigned physician members of the Presbyterian Church (USA) affirm that with modern medicine, abortion of a fetus who is able to live outside the womb is never needed to preserve the life or health (including future reproductive capability) of the mother....If problems develop in a pregnancy at a point when the fetus could live outside the womb and continuation of the pregnancy endangers the life or physical health of the mother, abortion is not the only or a necessary means of terminating the pregnancy. The mother’s safety can best be ensured by using procedures that provide the fetus with a chance for live birth. Common medically-accepted procedures for terminating late term pregnancies that allow the fetus to live when problems develop are prematurely induced labor with a vaginal delivery or a scheduled or emergency Caesarian.
This is what I mean. I realize opinions vary but I come down on this side, does that make me a nut. No that makes me a person who believes that the innocent life of a child should not taken. You may disagree.
I have friends in the unions that brag they get 66% of their income if they get laid off. If I don't work I don't get paid. Simple. I also know that some people in unions get paid for 40 hours but leave early. While I realize not all union people have this work ethic and some non union people do, The system is set up to foster this work ethic. I know of a man of integrity a pillar in his community, worked GM for over 20 years and he owns a Toyota. That speaks volumes. So I am open that unions provide some valuable service, however I believe that there are abuses that are left unchecked.
I believe in ownership and accountability and I disagree with the Democratic leadership. Take a stroll through the projects some time and tell me that entitlement works. I have canvassed the Robert Taylor HomeS in Chicago back in the 90's and I can tell you that entitlement programs have crippled a generation of people. Do I believe we should help our neighbors, absolutely I do it all the time, but the government is not able to discern a need because they are not on a personal level. I have a hard enough time discerning the needs out there and I stand face to face with the person.
Finally you keep using the word "lying" to describe Bush and his supporters. There has been distortions of the facts on both sides on this site. I will tell you this much. I stand by Bush because I know where he stands. I was not born a Democrat, Republican, Christian or Atheist. I formed my belief system based on my life experiences and extensive research. I looked at both sides and made a decision. I was not always a conservative. As a matter of fact I was anti-politics. I became a conservative because I saw first hand how the liberal agenda has damaged our society. That is my opinion, for what it is worth to you. I realize that I am not going to convice you, D. or JM however I hope that through the debating, the real debating someone might wander on to this site and form an opinon based on something I wrote. Abel if you want to convince one of us of your values you have not succeeded because you insist on insulting instead of educating. I will not argue with you about who started hurling insults first. It is fruitless and frankly a waste of my time. I will however disengage from that behavior and continue the debate.
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 9, 2004 11:24 AM
Abel
Can you EVER post without calling us HH Pro-Bushites (whatever that means). Hero hating? The man spent 4 months in Vietnam - less time than ANYONE ELSE who came home without major injuries or in a body bag. And he is a hero?
THe man is an opportunist and will promise anything to anyone to be elected.
Did you know that not only did he vote against the Gulf War that met his global test, but actually proposed on the Senate floor to allow Saddam "wiggle room" to allow him to leave Kuwait to save face!! Some hero and leader he is.
Posted by: Calamity Jane at October 9, 2004 12:58 PM
I believe this country is heading in the right direction
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 8, 2004 11:12 PM
Chris,
The FACT is your opinion of this Country going in the right direction is terribly wrong. One thing that has remain consistant in all polls is that the majority of Americans feel this Country is headed in the wrong direction. I could post for hours to back my allegations listed above with facts. Kerry will do something Bush doesn't know how to do and that is to submit a concrete pan to balance the federal budget. Bush is a spend thrift. My personal opinion is that he is on a trillion dollar shopping spree with American tax payer money. Is that being conservative? You refuse to answer my question because you cant. Face the truth and the facts.
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004
Posted by: d. jones at October 9, 2004 02:51 PM
To: New people on the message board. I have posted this before, but others need to know what kind of man President Bush is. Thanks.
TRUE STORY ABOUT THEN GOVERNOR G.W.BUSH.
I AM A POLICE OFFICER IN TEXAS. IN 1998 MY BEST FRIEND WAS KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY. IN 1999 OFFICERS KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY WERE HONORED BY THE STATE OFFICIALS. LED BY GOV. BUSH ALL THE STATE WIDE ELECTED OFFICIALS WERE ON HAND.
I WAS HONORED TO MARCH IN THE MISSING MAN FORMATION IN MY FRIENDS STEED. I WAS AT ATTENTION IN FRONT OF THE STATE OFFICIALS. IT BEGAN TO STORM VERY HARD, YES WE WERE OUT SIDE ON THE CAPITAL STEPS. MY WIFE WAS SITTING NEXT MY FRIENDS WIDOW, ALONG WITH THE LOVED ONES OF OTHER OFFICERS KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY. MY FRIENDS WIDOW WAS BEHIND GOV. BUSH. THE RAIN CAME DOWN AND GOV. BUSH TURN TO HER AND GAVE HIS UMBRELLA TO HER. HE SEAMED TO GET MAD, AND ALL THE OTHER STATE OFFICIALS GAVE THEIR UMBRELLA'S TO THE DEAD OFFICERS FAMILY MEMBERS INCLUDING MY WIFE. THEN HE ORDERED AIDS TO GIVE UP THEIR UMBRELLAS AND OTHERS TO GO INTO THE CAPITAL TO GET MORE UMBRELLAS, UNTIL ALL THE DEAD OFFICERS FAMILY AND FRIENDS HAD UMBRELLAS. ALL THE STATE OFFICIALS TALKED AT THE POATIAM WITHOUT RAIN GEAR OF ANY KIND INCLUDING GOV. G.W. BUSH. THIS IS A TRUE STORY NO NEWS ORGANIZATIONS REPORTED THIS. NO GAIN FOR THE GOVERNOR OF ANY KIND WAS GOTTEN BECAUSE OF THIS POLITE ACTION.
I DO NOT APPROVE OF ALL ACTIONS TAKEN BY PRESIDENT BUSH, I AM MORE CONSECRATIVE THEN HE IS. BUT THE MEASURE OF A MAN TO ME, IS DOING THE RIGHT THING WHEN NO ONE IS LOOKING. HE WILL HAVE MY VOTE AS LONG AS HE IS RUNNING. HE IS A GOOD MAN. IF YOU WONDERED IF GEORGE W. BUSH IS A GOOD MAN BELIEVE IT.
BRUCE EICHENBERG Thanks.
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at October 9, 2004 04:54 PM
Bruce,
I suppose anyone that was witnessing the umbrella situation was blind. Of course there were people looking. Just because it wasn't reported by the media really doesn't mean anything. I admit it was a nice gesture, though.
Posted by: JM at October 9, 2004 06:23 PM
d. jones
I agree that the polls overwhelming say that the country is heading in the wrong direction - I agree.
With liberal judges, gay marriage, attempting to remove "under God", unwed mothers, irresponsible fathers, partial birth abortions, graphic pornography arriving unwanted in my email as well as my chidren's email . Yes - we are heading in the wrong direction.
Posted by: Calamity Jane at October 9, 2004 07:16 PM
D.,
Your opinion that I disagree with the majority is inaccurate and by the way also an opinion.
Now I will answer your question. I disagree with some of the entitlements that he has approved. But he is in a leadership position and by the way in a very tough spot. Just look at what the libs did to his judicial nominees. so he feels the need to compromise. I believe it is fruitless to comprimise with the liberal leadership but he sees the data I don't. So he has not been as conservative as I would like however, we have been through a Clinton induced recession, a major terrorist attack, corporate scandals that were addressed under his watch and half a country that supports himand the other half undermines him. By the way if you think Kerry can unite us you are sadly mistaken. We are in a cultural battle that won't end soon.
I disagree that Bush is a spendthrift however, I believe that he is doing what he believes is necessary to jump start the economy, under very difficult circumstances. The stock market has rebounded nicely, homeownership is at an all time high, unemployment is at 5.4% or better. We are on our way to recovery. Are we there yet, we never will satisfy everyone, but we are heading in the right direction with regards to the economy.
The reason more people believe this country is headed in the wrong direction is simple. Some say it is headed in the wrong direction because we have lost our moral compass. Judges have taken God out of the schools, America's kids don't believe in right and wrong. This thought process is coming from the left. In addition the left thinks the country is going in the wrong direction under Republican leadership. I feel the first is true, however I believe Bush is trying to lead us in the right direction. We cannot decompartmentalize our lives. How we vote, how we live, our hearts will guide us in either the right or wrong direction. I ultimately take my orders from Jesus Christ through His Word, through prayer and that does not mean I am perfect but it does mean I am accountable and try every day to become the man that He wants me to be. So you see, I believe that Bush, who by the way reads his Bible, prays, and encourages people to express their faith in public, is trying to do God's will. That is why so many conservative Christians support him, so when you try to insult him you are tearing down a brother in Christ and that is wrong. Now if you disagree with his policies that is different. But we are to respect people in authority regardless of whether we agree or not.
When you compare him to satan, do you think that pleases your God? I would suggest not. I don't think that insulting Kerry helps Bush, what it does is shows intolerance. I strongly disagree with Kerry's policies, I am confident that his voting record contradicts what he says on the campaign trail. That is why I don't trust him. For the most part I don't believe Bush makes policy decisions based on polls, if he did, the U.N. and liberals would love him. No, he makes policy decisions based on core convictions and that my friend is why Bush's supoorters Strongly support him, as opposed to Kerry where most of his supporters are beating to the drum of "anybody but Bush". Kerry and Bush are very different, regardless of what some might say. Kerry is the most liberal senator and he has consistently tried to paint himself as a moderate. Why is that? It is because he has to please everyone. He cannot do it. It is good you support your candidate. Far better than the alternative. To many people are complacent. However don't confuse enthusiasm with disrespect. The only person who really loses respect is the person who hurls the insult.
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 9, 2004 07:21 PM
Jeannie Hall
Your post states:
"Do not vote for a man who would make promises he has not fulfilled. Reality check! Think about our problems (we do have problems regardless how the President spins it) and vote from reason and with compassion for all not for your self interest. This is America, "WE THE PEOPLE". Let us live up to our past reputation and come together as a union and find the best person for OUR leader."
I could not agree with you more about your first statement. After that I disagree. Our Commander and Chief is doing what is necessary to keep our nation safe. Since you live in Oregon, I will ask you do have any family that was affected by 9/11? If you do think about that when you go to the polls. I do think about the country as a whole when I go. I believe Bush is a strong leader and he is compassionate. It is Kerry that...wait what does Kerry stand for? His own constituency is confused, half think he is the anti-war candidate and the other thinks he is strong on defense. He voted against the first Gulf War, which was already approved by the U.N. I can appreciate your ideals, but we need to look at the big picture. As for " No child left behind", our school systems are trying to do too much. If they were as worried about reading, writing and arithmetic as they are about indoctrinating my kids with the liberal agenda their might be enough money to fund the schools. I am blessed, we are living in a good school system but we are all in a budget crunch. I believe Bush has given too much toward education and that schools should be funded locally. I know that is not popular with some folks but parents need to be accountable for their children's education, not the Federal government. That's my opinion and I know we disagree but I believe we both want what is best for our country, we just disagree with how to get there.
Posted by: Chris, OH at October 9, 2004 07:40 PM
"Chris, OH",
Look, I don't deny that "name calling and personal attacks" are going on. It's happening but it's a lie that it comes completely from our side. Face it, most of you HH pro-Bushites are not known to be very tolerant. Well, Liberals are known to be that.
I guess, I must be a little bit to the left of Liberals as I refuse to be tolerant with people who continually resort to name calling and personal attacks. I'm also not tolerant with people who resort to "demonizing" or "labeling" other people. My impression was that you fell into this group. Was I wrong?
I know exactly what HH pro-Bushites do. They demonize a label like "Liberal" and then apply it to someone who has different views. Ask yourself, are you this kind of person?
I'm a Union man but the unions I have been associated with were very democratic. That means that our members participated and they make their views known. The union officers (not Bosses) were elected and if they didn't "perform," they were replaced after their term of office.
You say, "I like Bush because he exhibits the leadership qualities that I admire." Well, I say that you should be tolerant of people who disagree and who consider Bush a failure. That's how I see Bush, a total failure who needs to be replaced as quickly as possible.
With me, a lie is when someone says something that isn't true. George W. Bush said that Saddam Hussein and Iraq presented an imminent danger to us and that was a lie. I even knew that at the time. I knew about us controlling the Northern and Southern "No Fly Zones" in Iraq. I also knew about our UN inspectors looking for WMDs and roaming all over Iraq at will. Saddam couldn't control his own country so how could he be a threat to us? Face it, Bush lied to us.
I've never said that anyone had to agree with me but I do ask that people be tolerant about my views. That's all. Why is that wrong? If you ask me why I think that way, I'll explain, but I don't expect that you'll start calling me names and thinking I'm stupid. That's when I begin to respond in kind.
I knew about Saddam, I knew that he was our man during our difficulties with Iran. He worked for us while he was doing his dirty activities against Iran and "some of his own people." That he had WMDs is without question. We had given them to him. Saddam and Iraq were our ally at that time and he was on our payroll.
When Saddam discussed Kuwait with us and received what he thought was our permission, he invaded Kuwait. That "miscommunication," was when his problems with us began. From then on, Saddam became our enemy. I accept that but I cannot accept that we illegally invaded Iraq unilaterally and without UN approval.
You HH pro-Bushites laugh about our UN because it didn't take action on existing resolutions against Iraq. It takes leadership to get our UN to act but, as a matter of fact, our UN has only reluctantly taken action for that reason, against other countries too, including Israel.
You talk about "Naral, NOW, homosexuals, conservative democrats, pro military democrats, anti war democrats, ETC." yes, I said that Democrats are known to be tolerant. Hey, what's wrong with that? Even Jesus Christ was tolerant, wasn't he?
Look, it's not easy to try to explain why we are pro-Choice. Pro-Choice doesn't mean Pro-Abortion either. When you say this, you are lying. Don't you think we also care for the fetus? We do, and we'd rather see it develop fully into a baby who will grow up to adulthood.
Pro-Choice only means that the woman involved should have the final word and control over her own body and that the Federal Government should never get involved regarding this kind of "privacy" matter. Think about that.
Why should we pass a law that protects the fetus that could send the mother and her doctor to prison if the woman decided to have an abortion? What a woman decides regarding her body should be her business alone.
The Pro-Choice issue is similar to the Stem Cell research situation. What some pro-Bushites don't realize is that stemcells are not capable of becoming viable fetuses like some people think. To "produce" a baby, one would have to put cells into a woman's womb, fertilize it, provide nutrition for it, etc. That's not what stem cell research is about. Why can't George W. Bush just allow our scientists to debate and decide on this issue?
If I haven't discussed some of your issues here, it is because I have to leave now. Please tell me in your response what they are and I'll continue.
Your POST follows:
"Abel, I only have to read through the above posts (and I am not going to repeat them)to see the examples of name calling and personal attacks. The problem I have with your posts specificially, is is with the insults not only to the posters but to Bush. I know too many union people who blindly follow the DNC and don't look at the big picture. Look I would respect your posts if you would just quit with the insults and stick to the facts and debate.
I am not a blind follower of Bush. I like Bush because he exhibits the leadership qualities that I admire. He is decisive. Now some would say he made the wrong decision to go to Iraq, but if you truly listen to his arguments (which I have posted the link above) you will see his rationale. Whether you agree or not that is a different story, but it it is not a matter of blind following or Bush lied. I consider that making assumptions based on biased information. The only person who truly knows if Bush lied is Bush. I suspect based on evidence that I have posted above that Bush believed intelligience just like everyone else. He saw and still sees that Saddam was a viable threat and did what he had to do based on the intelligience.
I believe in the sactity of marriage, Bush supports it. I believe in the sanctity of life. Bush supports it. I know that Kerry authorized the use of force and then voted against funding the troops. I believe that was wrong on so many diffenrent levels. Saddam was not being held accountable by our so-called allies that were mixed up in the oil for food scandal. Kerry says he can bring them to the table. I don't believe he can nor do I want them at the table. They are not our allies. While the coalition and the Iraqis have men and women being killed over in Iraq, our so-called allies are being exposed as undermining our efforts. My point is, I support my candidate because of my core values. I believe in the RNC platform and I have seen the result of the leadership under the DNC. I don't like what I see. Kerry cannot give us a clear answer on where he stands on the issues because the democratic party is splintered with different agendas, ie: Naral, NOW, homosexuals, conservative democrats, pro military democrats, anti war democrats, ETC., This puts him in a tight spot, as it did for Gore. He cannot risk losing one group over another. While Bush is in a similar situation, the majority of Bush's supporters support him because of his leadership style and his convictions. I don't agree that you leave your convictions at the door when you enter the White House and that is exactly what Kerry said he would do. Kerry said he believes in life but wants to make exceptions for the mother during a late term abortion.
See below source:
http://www.ppl.org/PPLNews_Fall2003_I.html
There is no life or health or other situation in the case of either mother or child late in pregnancy that makes abortion safer or healthier or in any way more advantageous than live delivery. Taking the life of a baby late in pregnancy is never a medical necessity (please see the wording of a petition signed by nearly 200 Presbyterian physicians below).
In addition to testimony by Presbyterian pediatricians before the General Assembly committee to which the abortion business was referred, physician Ed Ho, a member of Corona Presbyterian Church in Denver, presented the committee with a petition signed by nearly 200 Presbyterian physicians. The most pertient wording of the petition is:
We, the undersigned physician members of the Presbyterian Church (USA) affirm that with modern medicine, abortion of a fetus who is able to live outside the womb is never needed to preserve the life or health (including future reproductive capability) of the mother....If problems develop in a pregnancy at a poi