-
I guess...
...it all depends on "what your definition of is, is"
jimHJJ(...can't hit a movin' target...)
-
[QUOTE=piece-it pete]A soldier does his job. That job is NOT decided by him. The minute soldiers are allowed, or worse yet encouraged by fifth column elements here at home to insubordination our effectiveness as a fighting force is finished and we will be put down by our enemies.
Here I am!
Bushs' appearance on the aircraft carrier was twofold - congratulating our boys on a job well done - which it was - and marking the transition from invasion to occupation - which it was.
Ask any graduate of West Point if a war can be won without ground troops. Pushbutton war is a myth loved by folks who cannot face the fact that troops get shot and bombed, or are duped by people, earnestly or deceictfully, telling them it would work.
I do not like it. I ferverently wish it were not so. But those boys are heros whether or not the war is "justified" - they die doing their duty.
Pete,
I agree with you whole-heartedly on the soldier issue. But, the implication (even direct charge) from some is that Kerry did something wrong in his service because they didn't like what he did when he returned. This is simply wrong! The military makes this decision or finding and there has been none. In fact, the military was officially pleased with his service.
In contrast, an example of the insubordination issue I believe you are talking about is the recent reservist unit's decision not to take its convoy into combat areas, apparently contrary to direct orders.
Bush's appearance on the aircraft carrier can only be described as a "transition from invasion to occupation" in hindsight. The administration was running from the word "occupation" at every turn. I believe back then that the correct buzzword was "reconstruction". I'm sure the white house website has the speech. I think I've seen it but haven't reviewed it. I simply know the impression I was left with.
Can a Kerry supporter actually be proud of our troops? That's a funny question, but unfortunately that's the way the issue has been framed. If you're not voting for Bush, if you're questioning Bush's decisions or his administration's decisions, then you're not supporting the troops. However, you can support the troops if you're a Kerry-bashing Democrat, e.g., Zell Miller. In other words, you can be a Democrat and still support the troops so long as you don't vote for Kerry.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-it pete
Well I guess we don't need to continue the previous thread!
I was feeling good about this article BUT found that this is another extremely left individual. Articles and books she has authored include biotech food scare books (the legal professions' next target?), how Orrin Hatch helped kids buy drugs, global warming, why SUV drivers are jerks (better tell Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, he drives the gigantic Escalade), etc.
I really can't take these tort reform articles to heart until I see supporting evidence from a more middle-of-the-road type individual or organisation. Forgive me for the jab, but there is so far basis in fact: are ALL legal apologists lefties?
Pete
BTW, this just in: Latest Wash. Post poll has Bush gaining a slightly larger lead at 51% to 46%.
Dang it, Pete! Here you go. Of course it's not as strong argumentatively as the ones with personal stories (and some biased leanings), but if you want cold hard numbers about the medical malpractice liability "crisis" myth:
President Uses Dubious Statistics on Costs of Malpractice Lawsuits
Two Congressional agencies dispute findings that caps on damage awards produce big savings in medical costs.
January 29, 2004
Modified:January 29, 2004
Summary
The President holds out the prospect of major cost savings if Congress will pass a law limiting what injured patients can collect in lawsuits. He wants a cap of $250,000 on any damages for “pain and suffering” and other non-economic damages. His administration projects savings to the entire economy of between $60 billion and $108 billion per year in health-care costs, including $28 billion or more to federal taxpayers.
But both the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office criticize the 1996 study the Bush administration uses as their main support. These nonpartisan agencies suggest savings – if any – would be relatively small.
Analysis
In a speech in Little Rock, Arkansas on Jan. 26 the President said, “One of the major cost drivers in the delivery of health care are these junk and frivolous lawsuits.” He said rising malpractice insurance premiums and needless medical procedures ordered up out of fear of lawsuits cost federal taxpayers “at least” $28 billion a year in added costs to government medical programs. Bush’s Department of Health and Human Services claims total savings – public and private – of as much as $108 billion a year.
Those claims rest mainly on a single 1996 study by two Stanford economists who said caps on damage awards could hold down overall medical costs by 5% to 9%. They studied heart patients who were hospitalized, compared costs in states with and without limits on malpractice lawsuits, and then projected their findings to the entire health-care system.
But both the GAO and the CBO now question their sweeping conclusion. When the CBO attempted to duplicate the Stanford economists’ methods for other types of ailments they found found “no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending.”
“In short, the evidence available to date does not make a strong case that restricting malpractice liability would have a significant effect, either positive or negative, on economic efficiency, ” the CBO said.
What the President Said
In his Little Rock speech the President blamed baseless lawsuits for a big part of rising medical costs:
One of the major cost drivers in the delivery of health care are these junk and frivolous lawsuits. The risk of frivolous litigation drives doctors -- and hear me out on this -- they drive doctors to prescribe drugs and procedures that may not be necessary, just to avoid lawsuits. That's called the defensive practice of medicine.
. . . . See, lawsuits not only drive up premiums, which drives up the cost to the patient or the employer of the patient, but lawsuits cause docs to practice medicine in an expensive way in order to protect themselves in the courthouse.
The defensive practice of medicine affects the federal budget. The direct cost of liability insurance and the indirect cost from unnecessary medical procedures raise the federal government's health care costs by at least $28 billion a year.
What HHS Said
The President was relying on a paper issued last year by an assistant secretary of HHS which said “The litigation and malpractice insurance problem raids the wallet of every American.”
The HHS report put the cost of malpractice insurance to doctors alone at $6.3 billion in 2002, but said much larger costs come from "defensive medicine":
Defensive medicine that is caused by unlimited and unpredictable liability awards not only increases patients’ risk but it also adds costs. The leading study estimates that limiting unreasonable awards for non-economic damages could reduce health care costs by 5-9% without adversely affecting quality of care. This would save $60-108 billion in health care costs each year. These savings would lower the cost of health insurance and permit an additional 2.4-4.3 million Americans to obtain insurance.
That “leading study” was a 1996 paper by Stanford economists Daniel P. Kessler and Mark McClellan. McClellan – who is both an economist and a physician – served more recently as President Bush’s senior White House policy director for health care, and is now the head of the Food and Drug Administration.
The Kessler-McClellan study is one of the few academic studies that has ever attempted to measure the cost of “defensive medicine” attributable to lawsuits. It did so by examining the cost of treating hospitalized heart patients in states that have caps on damage awards and other restrictions on malpractice suits, and comparing them with the costs of treating similar patients in states without such limits on lawsuits.
The Kessler-McClellan conclusion:
We find that malpractice reforms that directly reduce provider liability pressure lead to reductions of 5 to 9 percent in medical expenditures without substantial effects on mortality or medical complications. We conclude that liability reforms can reduce defensive medical practices.
The Kessler-McClellan study won the 1997 American Economics Association’s award in health economics.
However, a fact not mentioned in the Bush HHS paper is that several other studies of defensive medicine failed to find anywhere near such large costs. A 1990 study by the Harvard University School of Public Health “did not find a strong relationship between the threat of litigation and medical costs,” CBO said. And a 1999 study in the Journal of Health Economics found only tiny savings – less than three-tenths of one percent – when studying the cost of Caesarian sections in states with limits on lawsuits, compared to states without limits.
Finally, a 1994 study by the congressional Office of Technology Assessment found some added costs (under $54 million total) due to defensive radiology in children with head injuries and defensive Caesarian sections in certain women with difficult pregnancies. But the OTA study concluded: “it is impossible in the final analysis to draw any conclusions about the overall extent or cost of defensive medicine.”
What GAO and CBO Said
CBO and GAO both question whether the results Kessler and McClellan observed in hospitalized heart patients can be applied to patients in cancer wards, nursing homes, doctors’ offices, maternity wards and elsewhere.
In 1999 a GAO study said the evidence Kessler and McClellan cited was too narrow to provide a basis for estimating overall costs of defensive medicine:
Because this study was focused on only one condition and on a hospital setting, it cannot be extrapolated to the larger practice of medicine. Given the limited evidence, reliable cost savings estimates cannot be developed.
And on Jan. 8, 2004 , the Congressional Budget Office also said the Kessler-McClellan study wasn’t a valid basis for projecting total costs of defensive medicine.
When CBO applied the methods used in the study of Medicare patients hospitalized for two types of heart disease to a broader set of ailments, it found no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending. Moreover, using a different set of data, CBO found no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts.
Worth noting: The nonpartisan CBO is now headed by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who previously was chief economist for President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.
Sources
President George W. Bush, " President Bush Calls for Medical Liability Reform : Remarks by the President on Medical Liability" Baptist Health Medical Center, Little Rock , Arkansas 26 Jan. 2004.
U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services, Office Of The Assistant Secretary For Planning And Evaluation " Confronting the New Health Care Crisis : Improving Health Care Quality and Lowering Costs By Fixing Our Medical Liability System" 24 July 2003.
Daniel Kessler and Mark McClellan, "Do Doctors Practice Defensive Medicine?" Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1996: 353-390.
Perry Beider and Stuart Hagen “ Limiting Tort Liability for Medical Malpractice ” Congressional Budget Office 8 Jan. 2004.
US General Accounting Office “ Medical Malpractice : Effect of Varying Laws in the District of Columbia , Maryland and Virginia ” 15 Oct 1999.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice , OTA-H--6O2 Washington, DC : U.S. Government Printing Office July 1994.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSE
Your not taking your thinking on the economy far enough. I'm no economic master but here is a very basic explaination
Taxes are cut. That puts more money in people's pockets. People spend this money on goods and services or invest. Because of increased sales and investment, production goes up. Increased production and sales means companies make more money. Companies making more money can hire more employees, expand, grow. Now that more people and companies are working and making more money they pay more taxes.
That's a very simplistic explanation so maybe someone else can chime in with a more detail explaination.
Another way to look at it is, consumer spending drives the economy. More money in your pocket promotes more cosumer spending.
In terms of your vote, maybe you should "bone-up" on the issues and understand them so you can make a informed decision. That would make a worthwhile difference.
JSE
I am no economist either but I can see one thing. Whether you are right or wrong doesn't matter so much. We have the largest deficit in the history of our country right now and most of it has come from the tax cut given to the wealthy, NOT the war in Iraq. We have no way out of the government spending habits other than to raise money somehow. What do you suggest? We have a fund-raisers like selling candy bars or have all the Senators come out and we can have a car wash? It is ridiculous to say that cutting taxes helps the economy. It might help short term with Consumer spending and Jobs, but it does not help our country's debt. As AMERICANS we should be willing to make sacrifices to help the good of our country, especially in a time of war. I am willing to pay a little more taxes to support our troops. To make sure they are getting the equipment they need AND to have a country that can fund the war as it is happening. That is my way of contributing to the War on Terror and to supporting our troops. By building a stronger America where we are not in debt to other countries and can fund our own battles.
I am very offended by you say that I should've boned up on the facts so that I could've made a better decision. Just because it isn't the decision you would have made doesn't mean it is a bad one. That is very egotistical of you. For your knowledge I have watched all 4 debates and read many articles from many sources. After each debate I have checked all of the facts on both sides to get the whole truth because everybody should know that BOTH candidates swing the truth in their favor. Based on the FACTS I have researched, I feel that I have made a very educated decision. This decision may not be the same as yours but that is what makes America great!
-
"I am no economist either but I can see one thing. Whether you are right or wrong doesn't matter so much. We have the largest deficit in the history of our country right now and most of it has come from the tax cut given to the wealthy, NOT the war in Iraq. We have no way out of the government spending habits other than to raise money somehow. What do you suggest? "
The tax cut is not really the reason our deficit is so big and it was given to ever tax payer, not just the wealthy. You might was to do some research on that. The economy was heading downward well before the President took office. And BTW, as FLZapped stated, the surplus was bogus. Since the tax cut, the economy has rebounded very well. Also, there was 9/11. This had a devestating effect on our economy. And, the Iraq war has contibuted to the deficit to some degree. The "fact" is that the economy is improving and doing much better that the liberals would have you believe. I think the President has done an incredible job with the economy based on the challenges we have faced.
"We have no way out of the government spending habits other than to raise money somehow."
Throwing money at government spending will not help the problem. The more you throw at politicians, the more they will spend. Re-read your statement. Does it make sense?
My suggestion? Tax cuts are a start. Cutting spending is another.
"It is ridiculous to say that cutting taxes helps the economy."
Well, your just flat out wrong there. Sorry.
"It might help short term with Consumer spending and Jobs, but it does not help our country's debt. "
How do you think we pay off debt. By bringing in money. Consumer spending leads to a stronger economy which means people are paying more taxes. Get it?
" By building a stronger America where we are not in debt to other countries and can fund our own battles."
Not really sure you understand what makes up our deficit.
"I am very offended by you say that I should've boned up on the facts so that I could've made a better decision. Just because it isn't the decision you would have made doesn't mean it is a bad one. That is very egotistical of you."
I was not disagreeing with your decision on who to vote for. I was disagreeing with the reasoning behind your statement.
"Based on the FACTS I have researched, I feel that I have made a very educated decision. "
Well, you made a decision. Not sure I would call it educated or based on "FACTS".
JSE
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSE
"I am no economist either but I can see one thing. Whether you are right or wrong doesn't matter so much. We have the largest deficit in the history of our country right now and most of it has come from the tax cut given to the wealthy, NOT the war in Iraq. We have no way out of the government spending habits other than to raise money somehow. What do you suggest? "
The tax cut is not really the reason our deficit is so big and it was given to ever tax payer, not just the wealthy. You might was to do some research on that. The economy was heading downward well before the President took office. And BTW, as FLZapped stated, the surplus was bogus. Since the tax cut, the economy has rebounded very well. Also, there was 9/11. This had a devestating effect on our economy. And, the Iraq war has contibuted to the deficit to some degree. The "fact" is that the economy is improving and doing much better that the liberals would have you believe. I think the President has done an incredible job with the economy based on the challenges we have faced.
"We have no way out of the government spending habits other than to raise money somehow."
Throwing money at government spending will not help the problem. The more you throw at politicians, the more they will spend. Re-read your statement. Does it make sense?
My suggestion? Tax cuts are a start. Cutting spending is another.
"It is ridiculous to say that cutting taxes helps the economy."
Well, your just flat out wrong there. Sorry.
"It might help short term with Consumer spending and Jobs, but it does not help our country's debt. "
How do you think we pay off debt. By bringing in money. Consumer spending leads to a stronger economy which means people are paying more taxes. Get it?
" By building a stronger America where we are not in debt to other countries and can fund our own battles."
Not really sure you understand what makes up our deficit.
"I am very offended by you say that I should've boned up on the facts so that I could've made a better decision. Just because it isn't the decision you would have made doesn't mean it is a bad one. That is very egotistical of you."
I was not disagreeing with your decision on who to vote for. I was disagreeing with the reasoning behind your statement.
"Based on the FACTS I have researched, I feel that I have made a very educated decision. "
Well, you made a decision. Not sure I would call it educated or based on "FACTS".
JSE
The surplus was real. At least that is what Bush said himself.
I guess you are just one of those drones that just accepts whatever the president says as the truth. It has been proven many many times that he has lied to all of us. When he is caught he just fabricates another lie to coverup.
Facts are facts. If you have an opinion that contradicts them then that is your opinion. I guess if my thoughts don't fall in line with your opinion then they must be uneducated. Let me please bow to you. I want to be just like you.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
Let me please bow to you. I want to be just like you.
Hey, at least your making one good decision. :D
I'm off to watch my Stros beat the hell out of the Cards.
Later,
JSR
-
Pete,
I agree with you whole-heartedly on the soldier issue....... a Kerry-bashing Democrat, e.g., Zell Miller. In other words, you can be a Democrat and still support the troops so long as you don't vote for Kerry.[/QUOTE]
Dean,
Well Kerry's a darn site better than Kusinich!! So we can count our blessings (if that's still allowed!).
I'm afraid I misunderstood the reference to the soldiers, I didn't realise you were discussing Kerry specifically.
In a head-to-head comparison with military service, I believe Kerry did the more honorable (far more honorable) thing originally. That's a fact. I believe he probably fought to the best of his ability. That's more or less guessing. His later actions are deplorable. That's a fact. Pretending to throw his metals, pandering to the anti-war crowd, this is demagogery at its worst.
His service wouldn't be such an issue, except HE made it one, and no wonder - when it comes to National Defense it's all he's got. After 20 years in Congress all he's got is - a history of gutting the Armed Services. And the intelligence services.
And these facts are there for all the world to see, whether or not he'll fight unfettered doesn't matter, he'll be perceived as weaker than Bush because of these facts.
Bush couldn't say "occupation" for perceived bad connotations (like so much not said), "reconstruction" is either code or the new word, take your pick. We never believed (or shouldn't have believed) the terrorists would roll over because we took out the government. Quite the contrary, it's amazing we've done so well. And anyone who has any knowledge of military actions KNOWS we've done well, VERY well, dispute is useless :) . True.
I won't say Kerry supporters are un-American. I'll let others do it.
Just kidding! Couldn't resist.
Cons see libs as destroying America. Libs see cons as doing the same thing. Who's right? It'll sound unimaginative, but quite frankly *right now* we need STRENGTH in foreign policy, like we haven't needed since the end of the cold war. We are GOING to take casualties in this war, and war it is. Win through covert ops? Who're these people kidding? Yep, Syria's going to say, "Come on in, shoot our citizens! Have at it!" Not going to happen. Well, it'll happen (it BETTER be happening!) but it's not going to win this fight, it's not going to take the place of ground troops shooting people and being shot at.
We show weakness, perceived or real, and more of our boys will die needlessly. We need to be respected, and strength will EARN it, not loved, love/kindness/softness will not stop these hateful people. Let them whine and complain. We've got a job to do, to protect ourselves.
Stated clearly: I do not believe you or most of your misguided cohorts :D are neccessarily un-American or anti-soldier by definition. I just believe you are wrong.
Pete
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by dean_martin
Dang it, Pete! Here you go.......... Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice , OTA-H--6O2 Washington, DC : U.S. Government Printing Office July 1994.
Hey, that's great!
I'll get back to you tomorrow.
Lots going on in this thread: And in this corner....
lol. Have a great evening!
Pete
PS I can't believe I'm saying this, but: Go Red Socks!!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-it pete
Stated clearly: I do not believe you or most of your misguided cohorts :D are neccessarily un-American or anti-soldier by definition. I just believe you are wrong.
Pete
Thanks, Pete. I feel much better about myself and the fact that I may still be accepted in society come Nov.3 (or whenever the recounts are done). BTW, have you seen the new NBC/WSJ poll. It has Bush at 48%, Kerry at 46% and Nader at 2% among registered voters. It has them tied at 48% among likely voters. The latest Zogby/Reuters has them knotted at 46% each. Kerry has actually gained ground since the weekend!
I don't know who the dems could have put up to unseat a President during war time, because there is a substantial block of voters who are afraid to make the switch. OTOH, there are slightly more Bush skeptics out there many of whom would make the switch if the dems had found the right guy. I refuse to accept the notion that a change in leadership in and of itself sends the wrong message. If that were the case, then why not just put off elections until this whole thing is over? Wait, then we might send the message that we're afraid! Anyway, on an interesting side note, one prediction I saw had the election going to the House of Reps. Do you think the House would go with the popular vote regardless of which candidate got the popular vote?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLZapped
While you fail to admit that it wasn't thought to be very prevelent in the first place.
Trial lawyers have their place, greedy, dishonest one, don't and give the profession a bad name.
As far as the election goes, at least with Bush I know his stance. Kerry has been on all sides of the issues, except maybe abortion, throughout the campaign. Even Imus couldn't figure him out.
-Bruce
OK, Bruce you got me. There are some things I'll never admit! But, Kerry's stance on the latest invasion of Iraq hasn't changed as the article from www.factcheck.org below shows. A masterful tactical job is being done by the Republican Machine. In another thread, I posted an article about Karl Rove's tactics in Texas and my home state of Alabama. The "whisper" campaigns and self-attacks were chilling!
I will admit, however, that I did not know that there was a vote on the 87billion for which Kerry actually voted. However, that version was conditioned on rolling back some of the tax cuts - of course, it failed. Could this have been what Kerry meant when he said he actually voted for it before voting against it on the straight up or down vote? I actually had questions about that one myself. The vote against the 87billion was a boneheaded protest vote, but Kerry (and everybody else) obviously knew that it would pass.
I've also had some time to think about the differences between the vote to authorize the President to use force if necessary and the vote to go into Iraq back in the early 90's. I think you can say there is a difference IF the early 90's vote was a vote on a declaration of war as defined in the Constitution. (Only Congress has the power to delare war.) Why did Kerry vote no back then? I don't know. He hasn't explained that or his explanation hasn't been very publicized. But, authorizing the use of force by the President and declaring war are 2 different things. Personally, I thought getting Saddam out of Kuwait was the right thing to do.
However, I think the "Kerry as flip-flopper" has been greatly exaggerated. People may be realizing that now. One of his faults is that he can't state his position in a 30 sec. soundbyte. I will admit that Kerry (like Bush) has communication problems.
Bush Ad Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq
Selective use of Kerry's own words makes him look inconsistent on Iraq. A closer look gives a different picture.
September 27, 2004
Modified: September 28, 2004
eMail to a friend Printer Friendly Version
Summary
Kerry has never wavered from his support for giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq, nor has he changed his position that he, as President, would not have gone to war without greater international support. But a Bush ad released Sept. 27 takes many of Kerry's words out of context to make him appear to be alternately praising the war and condemning it.
Here we present this highly misleading ad, along with what Kerry actually said, in full context.
Analysis
This ad is the most egregious example so far in the 2004 campaign of using edited quotes in a way that changes their meaning and misleads voters.
Bush-Cheney '04
"Searching:"
Bush: I'm George W. Bush and I approve this message.
Kerry: It was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision I supported him.
Kerry: I don't believe the President took us to war as he should have.
Kerry: The winning of the war was brilliant.
Kerry: It's the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Kerry: I have always said we may yet even find weapons of mass destruction.
Kerry: I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it.
(Graphic: How can John Kerry protect us . . .when he doesn't even know where he stands?)
"Right Decision"
Kerry is shown saying it was "the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein." What's left out is that he prefaced that by saying Bush should have made greater use of diplomacy to accomplish that.
The quote is from May 3, 2003, at the first debate among Democratic presidential contenders, barely three weeks after the fall of Baghdad. The question was from ABC's George Stephanopoulos:
Q: And Senator Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?
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.
(Note: We have added the emphasis in these and the following quotes to draw attention to the context left out by the Bush ad.)
"As he should have"
The full "right decision" quote is actually quite consistent with the next Kerry quote, "I don't believe the President took us to war as he should have," which is from an interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC's "Hardball" program Jan. 6, 2004:
Q: 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. Do I think this president violated his promises to America? Yes, I do, Chris.
Q: Let me...
Kerry: Was there a way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable? You bet there was, and we should have done it right.
"Winning of the war was brilliant"
When Kerry said "the winning of the war was brilliant" he wasn't praising Bush for waging the war, he was praising the military for the way they accomplished the mission. He also repeated his criticism of Bush for failing to better plan for what came next. This was also on "Hardball," May 19:
Q: All this terrorism. If you were president, how would you stop it?
Kerry: Well, it's going to take some time to stop it, Chris, but we have an enormous amount of cooperation to build one other countries. I think the administration is not done enough of the hard work of diplomacy, reaching out to nations, building the kind of support network.
I think they clearly have dropped the ball with respect to the first month in the after -- winning the war. That winning of the war was brilliant and superb, and we all applaud our troops for doing what they did, but you've got to have the capacity to provide law and order on the streets and to provide the fundamentally services, and I believe American troops will be safer and America will pay less money if we have a broader coalition involved in that, including the United Nations.
"Wrong war, wrong place"
When Kerry called Iraq "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time" he was once again criticizing Bush for failing to get more international support before invading Iraq. He criticized Bush for what he called a "phony coalition" of allies:
Kerry (Sept 6, 2004): You've got about 500 troops here, 500 troops there, and it's American troops that are 90 percent of the combat casualties, and it's American taxpayers that are paying 90 percent of the cost of the war . . . It's the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Earlier that same day at another campaign appearance he repeated pretty much what he's said all along:
Kerry (Sept 6, 2004): "I would not have done just one thing differently than the president on Iraq, I would have done everything differently than the president on Iraq. I said this from the beginning of the debate to the walk up to the war. I said, 'Mr. President, don't rush to war, take the time to build a legitimate coalition and have a plan to win the peace ."
We May Find WMDs
Nine months of fruitless searching have gone by since Kerry said on Dec. 14, 2003 that weapons of mass destruction might yet be found in Iraq. But what's most misleading about the Bush ad's editing is that it takes that remark out of a long-winded -- but still consistent -- explanation of Kerry's overall position on Iraq:
The exchange was on Fox News Sunday, with host Chris Wallace:
Q: But isn't it, in a realistic political sense going to be a much harder case to make to voters when you have that extraordinary mug shot of Saddam Hussein...looking like he's been dragged into a police line-up?
Kerry: Absolutely not, because I voted to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. I knew we had to hold him accountable. There's never been a doubt about that. But I also know that if we had done this with a sufficient number of troops, if we had done this in a globalized way, if we had brought more people to the table, we might have caught Saddam Hussein sooner. We might have had less loss of life. We would be in a stronger position today with respect to what we're doing.
Look, again, I repeat, Chris, I have always said we may yet even find weapons of mass destruction. I don't know the answer to that. We will still have to do the job of rebuilding Iraq and resolving the problem between Shias and Sunnis and Kurds. There are still difficult steps ahead of us.
The question that Americans want to know is, what is the best way to proceed? Not what is the most lonely and single-track ideological way to proceed. I believe the best way to proceed is to bring other countries to the table, get some of our troops out of the target, begin to share the burden.
The $87 Billion
The final quote is the one in which the Bush ad takes its best shot. Kerry not only said it, he did it. He voted for an alternative resolution that would have approved $87 billion in emergency funds for troops and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was conditioned on repealing much of Bush's tax cuts, and it failed 57-42. On the key, up-or-down vote on the $87 billion itself Kerry was only one of 12 senators in opposition, along with the man who later become his running mate, Sen. John Edwards.
It's not only Bush who criticizes Kerry's inconsistency on that vote. Rival Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman, a senator who also had voted to give Bush authority to use force in Iraq, said: "I don't know how John Kerry and John Edwards can say they supported the war but then opposed the funding for the troops who went to fight the war that the resolution that they supported authorized." Lieberman spoke at a candidate debate in Detroit Oct. 26, 2003.
Another Democratic rival who criticized Kerry for that vote was Rep. Dick Gephardt, who said beforehand that he would support the $87 billion "because it is the only responsible course of action. We must not send an ambiguous message to our troops, and we must not send an uncertain message to our friends and enemies in Iraq."
But aside from the $87 billion matter, this Bush ad is a textbook example of how to mislead voters through selective editing.
Sources
"Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate Sponsored by ABC News," Federal News Service, 3 May 2003.
"Interview with John Kerry," MSNBC Hardball with Chris Matthews, 6 Jan 2004.
"Interview with John Kerry," MSNBC Hardball with Chris Matthews, 19 May 2004.
Lois Romano and Paul Farhi, "Kerry Attacks Bush on Handling of Iraq," The Washington Post 7 Sep 2004: A8.
Calvin Woodward, "Kerry Slams 'Wrong War in the Wrong Place,'" The Associated Press , 6 Sep 2004.
Fox News Sunday, "Interview with John Kerry," 14 December 2003.
Adam Nagourney and Diane Cardwell, "Democrats in Debate Clash Over Iraq War," New York Times, 27 Oct 2003: A1.
Joe Klein, "Profiles in Convenience," Time magazine, 19 Oct 2003.
View Bush Ad "Searching"
FactCheck.org will send each new FactCheck and Special Report directly to your mailbox (disable pop-up blocker first).
Sign Up Now
Copyright 2004 Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
Judgments expressed are those of FactCheck.org’s staff, not the Annenberg Center
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-it pete
Bush couldn't say "occupation" for perceived bad connotations (like so much not said), "reconstruction" is either code or the new word, take your pick. We never believed (or shouldn't have believed) the terrorists would roll over because we took out the government. Quite the contrary, it's amazing we've done so well. And anyone who has any knowledge of military actions KNOWS we've done well, VERY well, dispute is useless :) . True.
Pete
I agree, Pete, Bush still can't say "occupation" and he has trouble saying "reconstruction".
Sorry, I couldn't resist!
On a serious note, yes we kicked butt and I'm proud of our military for their outstanding execution, especially in light of the fact that many neighboring countries wouldn't allow us to use more convenient mission launching sites. But, we didn't go into Iraq to go after terrorists did we? That's not what we were told. (It was alluded to though.) I'm waiting for the day that the administration tells us that the grand plan was to go into Iraq for the purpose of luring terrorists in so that we can kill them. I believe that is what has happened whether we planned for it or not. After Saddam's fall and the success of the initial invasion we continued to fight Saddam loyalists. Now, we're fighting a different enemy (terrorists) on the same battle field and I don't believe this new enemy was even there to begin with. Could this have been the plan all along? Or, am I way off base here? If it was the plan, then we need to stop worrying about elections and no-fight zones and clean that place out. Then and only then will the Iraqis get on the road to peace and freedom. If we're keeping up some kind of charade by promising elections and encouraging talks between Iraqi leaders and so-called insurgent leaders, then the job may never get done.
-
I'm voting for Ralph Nadder, because no one ever picks the little guy. Even if my vote will pretty much not count since he's a real small party.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by dean_martin
Dang it, Pete! Here you go. Of course it's not as strong argumentatively as the ones with ....... Assessment, Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice , OTA-H--6O2 Washington, DC : U.S. Government Printing Office July 1994.
This seems more..... something, can't think of the word. It sounds like they're basically saying it doesn't matter, or makes little difference. I sure wish a medical Doctor would chip in.
It is obvious that there hasn't been a definitive, overall study on the matter - they can't even agree among themselves!
I have to admit, I bring prejudice to this argument, based on all things The Little Rascals.
You might have seen the episode, where they sell insurance. The thing that sticks in my mind, and upon research was the way insurance generally worked at the time, that if you cut a finger you got x amount, black eye x amount, etc, all off a published list. The real insurance cos at the time had published payouts too, like lose an arm, x amount, etc.
This makes sense to me as someone who figures costs and does quotes every day. How on earth can I quote a competitive price if I don't know, or am unsure, what my real cost will be?
I'll HAVE to build in some cushion room, and will err on the expensive side 99% of the time. If I'm wrong I will at best lost the order and at worst lose the company, and all employees lose their jobs. Perhaps to China or India.
This isn't 100% applicable to tort reform. Still, a drag on the economy is a drag on the economy, and will cost both jobs and income. I see from the previous articles you've posted there are some issues with the tort bills passed. Particularly what I don't like is the punitive damages examples. Couldn't these be addressed seperately?
Pete
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-it pete
This seems more..... something, can't think of the word. It sounds like they're basically saying it doesn't matter, or makes little difference. I sure wish a medical Doctor would chip in.
It is obvious that there hasn't been a definitive, overall study on the matter - they can't even agree among themselves!
I have to admit, I bring prejudice to this argument, based on all things The Little Rascals.
You might have seen the episode, where they sell insurance. The thing that sticks in my mind, and upon research was the way insurance generally worked at the time, that if you cut a finger you got x amount, black eye x amount, etc, all off a published list. The real insurance cos at the time had published payouts too, like lose an arm, x amount, etc.
This makes sense to me as someone who figures costs and does quotes every day. How on earth can I quote a competitive price if I don't know, or am unsure, what my real cost will be?
I'll HAVE to build in some cushion room, and will err on the expensive side 99% of the time. If I'm wrong I will at best lost the order and at worst lose the company, and all employees lose their jobs. Perhaps to China or India.
This isn't 100% applicable to tort reform. Still, a drag on the economy is a drag on the economy, and will cost both jobs and income. I see from the previous articles you've posted there are some issues with the tort bills passed. Particularly what I don't like is the punitive damages examples. Couldn't these be addressed seperately?
Pete
The GBO study did have a doctor on board. My conclusion, supported by many anecdotals, experiences, and some studies such as the studies cited finding no real correlation between the cost of medicine and litigation and even those that are inconclusive, is that the so-called problem is greatly exaggerated. Why limit a constitutional right if you can't back up the limitations? Even if it is drag on the economy because it accounts for less than 1% of the total cost of medicine, why would we target this at the expense of limiting fundamental rights. Admittedly, the 7th Amendment has not been held to apply to the States through the 14th (known as the incorporation doctrine), but many state constitutions grant the right to trial by jury in civil cases. But, Pres. Bush has just formally proposed his caps on med mal liability from the federal level taking that decision away from the states. This, if passed, may bring the 7th Amend. directly into play and would make for an interesting supreme court case.
Most states, after the first wave of tort reform hit in the 1980's for the same stated reasons (premiums too high - but studies from various state insurance regulators show they never went down), provide for caps on punitive damages that take the form of multiples of compensatory damages, i.e., 3 x compensatories or 500K-2million, whichever is greater. Often included is a provision that factors in the net worth of the particular defendant, generally a business, so a judgment does not put the defendant out of business. The net worth is determined after verdict so that the wealth of the defendant does not become an issue before the jury. (You've probably noticed I haven't mentioned insurance. In my state, the jury cannot be told that the defendant has insurance, but it may play a role in the post-verdict determinations.)
The whole premise of instituting caps, like many other political plans, is backward. The cases that make it to a jury in which the jury renders a verdict for the plaintiff obviously have merit. Thus, caps most severely effect the meritorious cases and not the frivolous ones that over 90% of the time get tossed out before making it to trial.
I'm anti-cap, but I can live with caps on punitives because they are intended to punish and deter conduct done with a concsious disregard for the health and safety of others, or, in some instnaces, with the purpose of defrauding, and perhaps there is some unfairness in not knowing ahead of time what your punishment will be. I don't totally agree with this argument but it's often made. I think it's appropriate for criminal cases in which someone's liberty or life is at risk.
What I find extremely harsh is caps on non-economic damages such as those for pain and suffering and mental anguish. When you cap these damages, then the person like the stay-at-home mom, a minor, or a retiree, is unfairly treated. Not only that, the whole concept shows a distrust for citizens. In other words, it says that citizens are too stupid to put a number on these categories of damages. In my experience, when jurors are given this task they take it very seriously (this used to surprise me) and perform their tasks diligently.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by dean_martin
Thanks, Pete. I feel much better about myself and the fact that I may still be accepted in society come Nov.3 (or whenever the recounts are done). BTW, have you seen the new NBC/WSJ poll. It has Bush at 48%, Kerry at 46% and Nader at 2% among registered voters. It has them tied at 48% among likely voters. The latest Zogby/Reuters has them knotted at 46% each. Kerry has actually gained ground since the weekend!
I don't know who the dems could have put up to unseat a President during war time, because there is a substantial block of voters who are afraid to make the switch. OTOH, there are slightly more Bush skeptics out there many of whom would make the switch if the dems had found the right guy. I refuse to accept the notion that a change in leadership in and of itself sends the wrong message. If that were the case, then why not just put off elections until this whole thing is over? Wait, then we might send the message that we're afraid! Anyway, on an interesting side note, one prediction I saw had the election going to the House of Reps. Do you think the House would go with the popular vote regardless of which candidate got the popular vote?
No way, the House is GOP so if that happens Bush will win. It would be interesting to see, though, and maybe we'll live to see the day the Supreme Court finds the Constitution unConstitutional!
It occurred to me last night that these polls mean nothing, really, we need state-by-state polls to get a feel for the election. The WSJ says today WISCONSIN might be the deciding state with 10 electoral votes. Hear that Jeff? You may have decided the next president!
Though I hope not! :D
Tim, I'm glad you feel validated lol. These discussions can get so heated we tend to forget that for the most part we all mean well.
It's tough for the Dems in wartime now. With their fringe groups being virulently anti-war period, and those groups get a lot of tv airtime, they will be perceived as weak that way, right or wrong. But run Kerry?! He was the LEADER of those groups for YEARS! Arrrgh it gets to me. If they would've found the right person they would've beat Bush handily IMO. But who? Dean? GEPHART? Maybe Moynihan, seriously, he's well respected. Wait, I've got to mention Kusinich again (he's my congressman!). Hillary, who I think short changed your party for personal gain - and if Kerry wins will have to wait a loooong time in politicians' years to run. Traficant lol. OK I'm getting a bit silly with that one. Still, the thought of that bad-wigged crook running a national campaign cracks me up in a big way.
Of course the incumbent will say not to change horses in midstream. FDR played this card very well. There is some logic in this. All kinds of crap has been started worldwide since 9-11, most of which I'm sure we don't know about. It makes sense to allow it to play out, because 1) the incumbent has been involved for 4 years already - that is a long time, quite a leg up, 2) mixed signals ARE bad, and 3) none of the candidates, including Bush, are stupid or evil, give his plan a chance to come to fruition. Many of the players in our current drama worldwide have at least a passing familiarity with Bush, they have an idea where he stands. Even a country like France, posing on the world stage, KNOWS Bush will fight. He's proved it. This is invaluable! No wonder Iran and N Korea is having a sanitary problem with their BVDs' - they should. Even with nukes they know they're no match for us, and it scares them that Bush MIGHT mop them up. This makes it less likely we'll actually have to fight - peace through strength. That with deficit spending took out the mighty USSR, these little wanna-be Stalinist or Mohammadist outfits don't stand a chance.
We will have an election, of course, haven't missed one yet!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dean_martin
I agree, Pete, Bush still can't say "occupation" and he has trouble saying "reconstruction".
Sorry, I couldn't resist!
On a serious note, yes we kicked butt and I'm proud of our military for their outstanding execution, especially in light of the fact that many neighboring countries wouldn't allow us to use more convenient mission launching sites. But, we didn't go into Iraq to go after terrorists did we? That's not what we were told. (It was alluded to though.) I'm waiting for the day that the administration tells us that the grand plan was to go into Iraq for the purpose of luring terrorists in so that we can kill them. I believe that is what has happened whether we planned for it or not. After Saddam's fall and the success of the initial invasion we continued to fight Saddam loyalists. Now, we're fighting a different enemy (terrorists) on the same battle field and I don't believe this new enemy was even there to begin with. Could this have been the plan all along? Or, am I way off base here? If it was the plan, then we need to stop worrying about elections and no-fight zones and clean that place out. Then and only then will the Iraqis get on the road to peace and freedom. If we're keeping up some kind of charade by promising elections and encouraging talks between Iraqi leaders and so-called insurgent leaders, then the job may never get done.
lol Bush can be funny! But sometimes I cringe - mightily.
As far as going into Iraq after terrorists, weelllll, yes and no. The reason that WMD was a problem there and not with, say, Israel, is we didn't trust Saddam either to not use them or keep them out of the wrong hands.
If it works out that we kill al-Qaida over there, that works for me. Keep them busy, and DEAD. We have a very effective fighting force, far better than most realize. Our boys are very lethal.
"If it was the plan, then we need to stop worrying about elections and no-fight zones and clean that place out." Not too long ago I believed the same thing. What's happening is, we're letting the Iraqis exercise sovereignity! THEY are the ones persuing this course.
This to me is amazing. And so quickly. The rest of the world can kiss my - foot. We put our money where our mouth is, we have NO INTENTION of ruling Iraq and we're proving it. They are calling the shots, not us. Bloodshed, they're used to, freedom they are not. THIS will win the battle for "hearts & minds" in the Arab world.
Pete
-
My final point on this whole mess:
Perhaps the most instructive question that can be asked regarding the
upcoming presidential election is this: Given the chance, would Saddam
Hussein, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong-Il, Mohammad
Khatami, Moammar al-Ghadafi and Hu Jingtao vote for
A) George Bush, or
B) John Kerry?
How would Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder and Kofi Annan
vote?
-Bruce
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLZapped
My final point on this whole mess:
Perhaps the most instructive question that can be asked regarding the
upcoming presidential election is this: Given the chance, would Saddam
Hussein, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong-Il, Mohammad
Khatami, Moammar al-Ghadafi and Hu Jingtao vote for
A) George Bush, or
B) John Kerry?
How would Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder and Kofi Annan
vote?
-Bruce
And the award for best spelling goes to Zapped. Dang man, it would have taken me half an hour just to make sure I spelled all those names correctly. Of course I am just assuming you got them right. :D
JSE
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLZapped
Bush declared major battle operations over. Not victory. Get your facts straight.
Precisely. Those men had accomplished their mission. If the entire war was over as the liberals would want us to believe, why were troops still over in Iraq? What a simpleminded piece of propaganda the Democrats tried to glean from that incident!
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLZapped
Kerry also applied for a deferment. It was denied because he wanted to go study overseas(France). The governement wasn't issuing deferments for that purpose. So Kerry weasled his way into OTS. Then he weasled his way onto a swift boat where he knew he cold lead, instead of take orders. Four months later he was on his way home because of an obscure rule that allowed him to after his 3rd combat injury. You can't tell me that he wasn't looking for any way out and found it.
Swift Boats at the time were known to be one of the safest places to be if you had to be in Vietnam. They patrolled the coastal areas. Kerry had no problem with that strategy, therefore he volunteered for it rather than be drafted into a place where he would face greater danger. But military strategists decided to change their tactics and to use them to patrol inland rivers. That's when Kerry started getting all bent out of shape because it put him in much greater danger. Kerry's service in Vietnam reeks of cowardly incident after cowardly incident.
Several crafts would patrol together and when a mine blew up one of the boats, Kerry gunned his boat and high-tailed it out of the area. The other boats went to rescue the crew of the crippled boat. Once Kerry saw that it was safe, he turned his boat around and went back to the scene. There are many such incidents. One of the people who support him, Jim Rassman, was knocked overboard and was in the water at the time. He heard gunfire, so his account of the incident refers to enemy gunfire. When the mine exploded, the Swiftees thought they were being ambushed, so laid down fire into the shores. None of their boats had any damage recorded from enemy fire and Kerry's request for a Purple Heart was initially turned down because everybody knew there was no enemy fire. Kerry went around the system to get a Purple Heart for his wound which by his own admission came from an incident earlier in the day where he threw a grenade into a rice bin and the exploding shapnel and rice gave him some superficial wounds, treated with Bactarin and bandaids.
He was such a whiner and complainer once they were on the more dangerous patrols that nobody wanted him around and considered him reckless and a danger to them. It was actually his fellow vets that wanted him to take advantage of the 3 Purple Owie awards to get him away from them. They felt their lives were in jeopardy with Kerry around.
If the Swiftees are lying, all Kerry has to do is sign a form 180 to release his military records. That simple act would prove they were lying. Yet, he refuses to do so. Ask yourself...why is he so afraid of releasing records if he is telling the truth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dean_martin
After the damage Bush has done, I'm not sure how Kerry is going to build better alliances, but I do know that he's polling much better in traditional European allied countries.
When you're in the military, you depend on your fellow soldiers and you don't really care if they're black, white, athiest, Buddhist, etc. You know there's a mutual reliance on each other, thus a "Band Of Brothers" is formed. Yet there are 250-some Swift Boat vets who believe that Kerry is unfit to serve and a handful (all paid campaign workers) who support him. That's the first sign that Kerry doesn't have what it takes to form a coalition. Then you've got the recent incidents where Kerry calls the leader of Iraq a liar. Kerry insults the Italians, saying that "even the Italian army" could've beaten the Iraqis. That's an insult to the Italians and to our own troops. Germany and France have already stated that they will not participate in the Iraqi effort, no matter who is president. It looks like Kerry is just throwing out empty promises, doesn't it? Kerry clearly hasn't the right stuff to form alliances or coalitions. But he wants you to believe that he can do it. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOEBIALEK
...the mass media trying to spin this race...
The email makes it sound like the media has got a conservative bias to it. Just look at the facts. We've had countless anti-Bush books and movies published. You see Kitty Kelley and Michael Mooron on The Today Show, The Tonight Show, 60 Minutes, etc. You have the worst media scandal ever with Rathergate, trying to poison the election with obviously fraudulent documents. You have an internal ABC memo published which shows how they were trying to spin their coverage to Kerry's advantage.
Then you have the Swift Boat Veterans who have been BEGGING to be on those same shows. Has anyone seen them, besides in their own ads? Sinclair Broadcasting Group was set to broadcast "Stolen Honor" http://www.stolenhonor.com but Dimocrats dragged their stock prices down 17% and issued other threats, so they finally caved to the pressure.
There are two movies out to counter Fahrenheit 9/11, called FahrenHYPE 9/11 and Celsius 41.11. Have you seen these on your local theatre marquees? A private citizen just paid $104,656 for a full page ad in the Washington Post just to be heard. See http://www.whatiam.net If anything, there IS a mass media effort to spin this race, but it's a liberal spin, not a conservative one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence The Terrible
Well considering we never found WMD, and we had people on the ground actively searching, and G.W didn't have the patience to wait until they were completed, an arguement can be made that we rushed to war.
And that argument would be without merit. Saddam was supposed to comply with inspectors, as per his terms of surrender. He chose to obfuscate and play shell games. We had TWELVE years of patience. That's certainly no "rush to war".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence The Terrible
Had you have been paying close attention, you would have found that we had absolutely NO support in the UN for this kinda of move.
Had you been paying close attention, you might have noticed how Syria is on the Human Rights Commission and the U.S. is not! Doesn't that say anything to you? Syria?? A haven for terrorism and VIOLATION of human rights? The U.N. has lost its credibility. The oil-for-food scandal is just one more indication that the U.N. has turned into a corrupt organization which has devalued to the point of worthlessness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence The Terrible
Had Hans Blix had the oportunity to complete his search, he could have concluded that no WMD can be found, eleminated the chance that troops would be deployed, and 1,000+ would still be alive, and 5,000+ would not be maimed or injured. We would also have 200 billion dollars more in our coffers, and countless Iraqi people still alive.
Wishful thinking on your part. The inspections team had YEARS to do their job. They could reach NO such conclusion as long as Saddam kept up the shell game. With the mass graves found in Iraq, how could you possibly say that more Iraqis would be alive if we stayed out of there? Saddam murdered HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of innocent people. We're killing the Iraqis who are shooting at us!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence The Terrible
During his (Bush's) watch, the desparity between the wealthy and the poor has grown wider.
That also happened during the Clinton administration. Were you complaining then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence The Terrible
This country is divided in a way unheard of in it's history, and his Presidency is directly responsible for that
Nope. Sorry. The Dimocrats are responsible for that. Before Bush even took the oath of office, he was being ripped apart by Dimocrats. They even blamed him for the downswing in the economy WHILE CLINTON WAS STILL PRESIDENT. They never gave Bush a fair shake and no matter WHAT Bush would do, they would criticize it. We get attacked on 9/11, and Dimocrats complained that Bush sat for a whole 7 minutes when first notified of it. But when he takes decisive action, he gets criticized. Damned if he does. Damned if he doesn't. There are MANY instances of that kind of unfair treatment of Bush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence The Terrible
States that had a dearth of manufacturing jobs, ask them how they benefitted from his tax cut to the wealthy.
Our global economy is changing and there's not a thing that Kerry, Bush or ANYONE can do about it. Keeping some industries alive is like demanding that companies who produced slide rules be kept afloat. That's nonsense and you know it. The "tax cut to the wealthy" is just another Dimocrat talking point. The cut was even across the board. Poorer people didn't get as much back BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T PAY AS MUCH INTO THE SYSTEM. It's that simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
People say that Kerry is going to raise our taxes. I don't think he will.
More wishful thinking on your part. Kerry's record speaks volumes. He IS the most liberal Senate member, based on his record. To "think that he will not raise taxes" when he promises everything under the sun is totally naive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
Bush acts like a strong leader but if you don't have the brainpower to make good decisions you are no longer a good leader.
Bush has made good, strong CONSISTENT decisions which make total sense. He does things that aren't politically expedient for him. He has made tough decisions that put his re-election at risk. He does not lead by opinion poll, but does what he feels is the RIGHT THING to do. That's not just a good leader, that's an EXCELLENT leader!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
We saw in the first debate how much of a retard he is.
Read this article http://www.jewishworldreview.com/col...berg101504.asp Here's an excerpt:
Quote:
Our dyslexic president made his usual goofs in the second presidential debate and heavyweight match, but by now no one really notices. It's as if the country had learned to translate him.
.
Listening to this president is like tuning a radio to not quite the right frequency.
.
Between the president's speech and my hearing, there was a lot lost in the translation. And yet no one has any problem understanding exactly where George W. Bush stands.
.
His words blur, but his meaning is damned well clear. Some of us may disagree with him, even strongly, but we're never in doubt about where he's coming from, and where he's absolutely determined to go.
.
John Kerry's diction, on the other hand, is perfectly clear. It's a textbook example of New England Upper Class so well modulated it's almost neutral. Each word is distinct. His delivery is smooth, his sound sincere. It's only his meaning that's a total blur, full of reservations, equivocations, and explanations that never really explain . . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSE
Taxes are cut. That puts more money in people's pockets. People spend this money on goods and services or invest. Because of increased sales and investment, production goes up. Increased production and sales means companies make more money. Companies making more money can hire more employees, expand, grow. Now that more people and companies are working and making more money they pay more taxes.
That's a very simplistic explanation so maybe someone else can chime in with a more detail explaination.
How about we look at it from the opposite angle? Years ago, California liberals decided to load up corporations with all sorts of taxes and regulations. More taxation means more money in the coffers, right? What HAPPENED was that it became economically undesireable for many companies to function in California, so they moved their businesses to more friendly states, like Nevada. The loss of those businesses in California meant less tax collected both from the corporations and the employees that worked for them. So, more taxation resulted in less tax income. Get it?
That's how liberal destruction works. Then they try to blame the loss of jobs on Republicans.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeskibuff
How about we look at it from the opposite angle? Years ago, California liberals decided to load up corporations with all sorts of taxes and regulations. More taxation means more money in the coffers, right? What HAPPENED was that it became economically undesireable for many companies to function in California, so they moved their businesses to more friendly states, like Nevada. The loss of those businesses in California meant less tax collected both from the corporations and the employees that worked for them. So, more taxation resulted in less tax income. Get it?
That's how liberal destruction works. Then they try to blame the loss of jobs on Republicans.
Good example. Hmmm, maybe that's part of the reason we see so much outsourcing? Hmmm? Kerry wants to increase taxes on corporations. That makes sense. :confused: Let's force our domestic companies to move out of the country by making the tax burden so huge they can't stay in business. But that's against the principles of capitalism. :confused: Oh that's right, Kerry's a socialists. I forgot. :D
One thing is for sure, many people don't understand the difference between paying more taxes because you can and paying more taxes because you are forced to by law.
JSE
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSE
Good example. Hmmm, maybe that's part of the reason we see so much outsourcing? Hmmm? Kerry wants to increase taxes on corporations. That makes sense. :confused: Let's force our domestic companies to move out of the country by making the tax burden so huge they can't stay in business
Precisely.
Dimocrats' eyes glazed over when Kerry spoke of upping the minimum wage to $7. That pleases people who believe they are owed a better wage despite their lack of skill and/or education. But any company must turn a profit in order to stay in business, so if their labor costs go up they'll look to cut costs wherever they can in order to keep their product(s) price competitive.
If that means finding cheaper labor abroad who will do the same job, that means more Americans lose their jobs because of the minimum wage hike.
That means more people on the welfare rolls and on food stamps etc., living off the government which gets money to pay for those programs from working peoples' taxes.
So Kerry's utopia of higher wages for unskilled labor actually results in fewer jobs, higher taxes and higher costs. But it tempts the fools who will cast their vote for him.
Things have changed with our global economy and if we intend to remain competitive, we have to denounce the free giveaway tactics that con artists like John Kerry will use.
Incidentally, I know it's not necessary to apologize to you for the way I worded my response earlier, but I just want to make things clear. I quoted you, then ended my response with the words "Get it?" I'm confident that you know that those words weren't directed to you, although I was initially addressing you. You and I are on the same page, so I already know that you JSE, "get it"! ;)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeskibuff
Precisely.
Dimocrats' eyes glazed over when Kerry spoke of upping the minimum wage to $7. That pleases people who believe they are owed a better wage despite their lack of skill and/or education. But any company must turn a profit in order to stay in business, so if their labor costs go up they'll look to cut costs wherever they can in order to keep their product(s) price competitive.
If that means finding cheaper labor abroad who will do the same job, that means more Americans lose their jobs because of the minimum wage hike.
That means more people on the welfare rolls and on food stamps etc., living off the government which gets money to pay for those programs from working peoples' taxes.
So Kerry's utopia of higher wages for unskilled labor actually results in fewer jobs, higher taxes and higher costs. But it tempts the fools who will cast their vote for him.
Things have changed with our global economy and if we intend to remain competitive, we have to denounce the free giveaway tactics that con artists like John Kerry will use.
Incidentally, I know it's not necessary to apologize to you for the way I worded my response earlier, but I just want to make things clear. I quoted you, then ended my response with the words "Get it?" I'm confident that you know that those words weren't directed to you, although I was initially addressing you. You and I are on the same page, so I already know that you JSE, "get it"! ;)
Screw you man! :mad:
Nah, just kidding. :p I knew exactly what you were saying and to whom. (or is that who?)
I just can't believe people don't see through Kerry's "front". Raising taxes on businesses small and large looks good at first glance because everyone thinks they can afford it. But that's not the case. With todays wireless and paperless world, companies will continue to move out of the US and into countries with less taxation and regulation. For example, I could do my job from just about anywhere in the world as long as I have a phone and internet access and basic office supplies like a printer, computer, pen, pencil, etc. It almost sounds like Kerry want's to drive businesses away? Ooops, I fogot again. :D
Anyway, I'll be sulking away the rest of the day now that my Stros are out of the series.
JSE
-
-
A bit off topic, but as this is an election thread, I thought the following study of just how informed of Bush's positions his supporters are, and how aware of established facts they are would be inetresting to some of you...
<a href="http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf">The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters</a>
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by dean_martin
The GBO study did have a doctor on board. My conclusion, supported by many anecdotals, experiences, and some studies such as the studies cited finding no real correlation between the cost of medicine and ....... experience, when jurors are given this task they take it very seriously (this used to surprise me) and perform their tasks diligently.
I didn't KNOW jury awards were Constitutionally protected in the Federal arena. I'll have to look at that.
And strangly enough, I'm OK with caps on non-economic awards but not punitives, simply 'cause some companies are so big the punitive has to be huge to mean anything, and I trust businesses as much as I trust the gov't - not at all. Mostly a bunch of crooks IMO.
What I mean about a Doctor chiming in is, like us here. Different than a study, you know?
Anytime they pass a law, any law, it restricts us further. To bad we can't repeal one once in a while!
So what do we need to do? Completely deregulate the insurance industry?
Pete
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody
A bit off topic, but as this is an election thread, I thought the following study of just how informed of Bush's positions his supporters are, and how aware of established facts they are would be inetresting to some of you...
<a href="http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf">The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters</a>
nobody,
Thanks for the link. I'll read it this weekend.
One thing was obvious at a glance - Kerry supporters sure are a lot righter - even though they're left.
OK, so that's not that funny, sue me.
I'm killing myself. :D
Have a great weekend!
Pete
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody
A bit off topic, but as this is an election thread, I thought the following study of just how informed of Bush's positions his supporters are, and how aware of established facts they are would be inetresting to some of you...
<a href="http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf">The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters</a>
This is a flawed report.
1) They did not provide the questions used in any of the polls as an appendix item, therefore it is impossible to tell what the questions were and what biases they contained. It also make it impossible to repeat the work.
2) They base many of their conclusions against the Charles Duelfer report, which came out on September 30 yet two of the three polls they used were taken weeks before it came out. The final, less than two weeks afterward.
3) They claim that Kerry supporters are more inline with his view, while ignoring the fact he has been on both sides of almost every issue during this campaign. Not even Imus, who strongly supports him can tell where he stands.
4) They use nebulous wording such as "substantial support" - which will mean different things to different people.
This statement alone shows how biased this report is:
"Bush appears to assume that his support is fragile. He refuses to admit to making any mistakes."
In a time of war, the president is not at liberty to say many things. He sure isn't going to say anything to indicate there may be a weakness the enemy may exploit. How are they to know how the president views his support? This is a complete guess on their part.
I also find it amazing that they ignore the fact that an AL Qaeda base was found during the war that we were able to gain intelligence from. I find it amazing that you have a major Al Qaeda figure(whose name escapes me) in Iraq more than once over the years not an indication of an alliance of some type. Now Al-Zarkawi has now admitted is allegance to Al Qaeda.
I can't say that I believe this "paper" is worth the electrons it's written on.
-Bruce
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeskibuff
Swift Boats at the time were known to be one of the safest places to be if you had to be in Vietnam. They patrolled the coastal areas. Kerry had no problem with that strategy, therefore he volunteered for it rather than be drafted into a place where he would face greater danger. But military strategists decided to change their tactics and to use them to patrol inland rivers. That's when Kerry started getting all bent out of shape because it put him in much greater danger. Kerry's service in Vietnam reeks of cowardly incident after cowardly incident.
Several crafts would patrol together and when a mine blew up one of the boats, Kerry gunned his boat and high-tailed it out of the area. The other boats went to rescue the crew of the crippled boat. Once Kerry saw that it was safe, he turned his boat around and went back to the scene. There are many such incidents. One of the people who support him, Jim Rassman, was knocked overboard and was in the water at the time. He heard gunfire, so his account of the incident refers to enemy gunfire. When the mine exploded, the Swiftees thought they were being ambushed, so laid down fire into the shores. None of their boats had any damage recorded from enemy fire and Kerry's request for a Purple Heart was initially turned down because everybody knew there was no enemy fire. Kerry went around the system to get a Purple Heart for his wound which by his own admission came from an incident earlier in the day where he threw a grenade into a rice bin and the exploding shapnel and rice gave him some superficial wounds, treated with Bactarin and bandaids.
He was such a whiner and complainer once they were on the more dangerous patrols that nobody wanted him around and considered him reckless and a danger to them. It was actually his fellow vets that wanted him to take advantage of the 3 Purple Owie awards to get him away from them. They felt their lives were in jeopardy with Kerry around.
If the Swiftees are lying, all Kerry has to do is sign a form 180 to release his military records. That simple act would prove they were lying. Yet, he refuses to do so. Ask yourself...why is he so afraid of releasing records if he is telling the truth?
.
The above is the type of vile and vulgar stuff that is made up of distortions and personal attacks. Again, I refer you to my previous post "How about these tactics..." in which it is revealed that Karl Rove initiated a "whisper" campaign against a judicial condidate in my home state of Alabama. The whisper campaign accused the judicial candidate of being a homosexual pedophile. The candidate had been running ads that demonstrated his support for and establishment of a charity for kids in need. The philosophy behind the attack campaign is the same philosophy we've been seeing since summer - attack your opponent on his best, or otherwise untouchable strength. Rather than letting this vulgarity go unchallenged, I've copied the following:
Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record
Ad features vets who claim Kerry "lied" to get Vietnam medals. But other witnesses disagree -- and so do Navy records.
August 6, 2004
Modified:August 22, 2004
Summary
A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts.
But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records.
One of the accusers says he was on another boat "a few yards" away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry's account. In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal , Rassmann (a Republican himself) wrote that the ad was "launched by people without decency" who are "lying" and "should hang their heads in shame."
And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident.
Analysis
"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" is a group formed March 23 after Kerry wrapped up the Democratic nomination. It held a news conference May 4 denigrating Kerry's military record and his later anti-war pronouncements during the 1970's. The group began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which 13 veterans variously say Kerry is "not being honest" and "is lying about his record."
SBVT Ad "Any Questions?"
John Edwards: "If you have any questions about what John Kerry is made of, just spend 3 minutes with the men who served with him."
(On screen: Here's what those men this of John Kerry)
Al French: I served with John Kerry.
Bob Elder : I served with John Kerry.
George Elliott: John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam.
Al French: He is lying about his record.
Louis Letson: I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury.
Van O'Dell: John Kerry lied to get his bronze star...I know, I was there, I saw what happened.
Jack Chenoweth: His account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day.
Admiral Hoffman: John Kerry has not been honest.
Adrian Lonsdale: And he lacks the capacity to lead.
Larry Thurlow: When he chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry.
Bob Elder: John Kerry is no war hero.
Grant Hibbard: He betrayed all his shipmates...he lied before the Senate.
Shelton White: John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam.
Joe Ponder: He dishonored his country...he most certainly did.
Bob Hildreth: I served with John Kerry...
Bob Hildreth (off camera) : John Kerry cannot be trusted.
Where the Money Comes From
Although the word "Republican" does not appear in the ad, the group's financing is highly partisan. The source of the Swift Boat group's money wasn't known when it first surfaced, but a report filed July 15 with the Internal Revenue Services now shows its initial funding came mainly from a Houston home builder, Bob R. Perry, who has also given millions to the Republican party and Republican candidates, mostly in Texas, including President Bush and Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whose district is near Houston
Perry gave $100,000 of the $158,750 received by the Swift Boat group through the end of June, according to its disclosure report .
Perry and his wife Doylene also gave more than $3 million to Texas Republicans during the 2002 elections, according to a database maintained by the Institute on Money in State Politics . The Perrys also were among the largest Republican donors in neighboring Louisiana, where they gave $200,000, and New Mexico, where they gave $183,000, according to the database
At the federal level the Perrys have given $359,825 since 1999, including $6,000 to Bush's campaigns and $27,325 to DeLay and his political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, according to a database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics .
The Silver Star
Several of those who appear in the ad have signed brief affidavits, and we have posted some of them in the "supporting documents" section to the right for our visitors to evaluate for themselves.
One of those affidavits, signed by George Elliott, quickly became controversial. Elliott is the retired Navy captain who had recommended Kerry for his highest decoration for valor, the Silver Star, which was awarded for events of Feb. 28, 1969, when Kerry beached his boat in the face of an enemy ambush and then pursued and killed an enemy soldier on the shore.
Elliott, who had been Kerry's commanding officer, was quoted by the Boston Globe Aug 6 as saying he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing the affidavit against Kerry, in which Elliott suggested Kerry hadn't told him the truth about how he killed the enemy soldier. Later Elliott signed a second affidavit saying he still stands by the words in the TV ad. But Elliott also made what he called an "immaterial clarification" - saying he has no first-hand information that Kerry was less than forthright about what he did to win the Silver Star.
What Elliott said in the ad is that Kerry "has not been honest about what happened in Viet Nam." In his original affidavit Elliott said Kerry had not been "forthright" in Vietnam. The only example he offered of Kerry not being "honest" or "forthright" was this: "For example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.
In the Globe story, Elliott is quoted as saying it was a "terrible mistake" to sign that statement:
George Elliott (Globe account): It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here. . . . I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.
In his second affidavit, however, Elliott downgraded that "terrible mistake" to an "immaterial clarification." He said in the second affidavit:
Elliott (second affidavit): I do not claim to have personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong.
Elliott also said he now believes Kerry shot the man in the back, based on other accounts including a book in which Kerry is quoted as saying of the soldier, "He was running away with a live B-40 (rocket launcher) and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." (The book quoted by Elliott is John F. Kerry, The Complete Biography, By The Reporters Who Know Him Best.)
Elliott also says in that second affidavit, "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong." That statement is misleading, however. It mischaracterizes the actual basis on which Kerry received his decoration.
The official citations show Kerry was not awarded the Silver Star "for simply pursuing and dispatching" the Viet Cong. In fact, the killing is not even mentioned in two of the three versions of the official citation (see "supporting documents" at right.) The citations - based on what Elliott wrote up at the time - dwell mostly on Kerry's decision to attack rather than flee from two ambushes, including one in which he led a landing party.
The longest of the citations, signed by Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, describes Kerry as killing a fleeing Viet Cong with a loaded rocket launcher. It says that as Kerry beached his boat to attack his second set of ambushers, "an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft Fast 94 and fled. Without hesitation, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hooch, and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber."
Two other citations omit any mention of the killing. One was signed by Admiral John J. Hyland, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, and the other was signed by the Secretary of the Navy. Both those citations say Kerry attacked his first set of ambushers and that "this daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers." Later, 800 yards away, Kerry's boat encountered a second ambush and a B-40 rocket exploded "close aboard" Kerry's boat. "With utter disregard for his own safety, and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet away from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy." In these citations there is no mention of enemy casualties at all. Kerry was cited for "extraordinary daring and personal courage . . . in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire."
Elliott had previously defended Kerry on that score when his record was questioned during his 1996 Senate campaign. At that time Elliott came to Boston and said Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star. And as recently as June, 2003, Elliott called Kerry's Silver Star "well deserved" and his action "courageous" for beaching his boat in the face of an ambush:
Elliott (Boston Globe, June 2003): I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that. . . . (It) was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three people there.
Elliott now feels differently, and says he has come to believe Kerry didn't deserve his second award for valor, either, based only on what the other anti-Kerry veterans have told him. He told the Globe Aug. 6:
Elliott: I have chosen to believe the other men. I absolutely do not know first hand.
On Aug. 22 an officer who was present supported Kerry's version, breaking a 35-year silence. William B. Rood commanded another Swift Boat during the same operation and was awarded the Bronze Star himself for his role in attacking the Viet Cong ambushers. He said Kerry and he went ashore at the same time after being attacked by several Viet Cong onshore.
Rood said he was the only other officer present. Rood is now an editor on the metropolitan desk of the Chicago Tribune, which published his first-person account of the incident in its Sunday edition. Rood said he had refused all interviews about Kerry's war record, even from reporters for his own paper, until motivated to speak up because Kerry's critics are telling "stories I know to be untrue" and "their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us."
Rood described two Viet Cong ambushes, both of them routed using a tactic devised by Kerry who was in tactical command of a three-boat operation. At the second ambush only the Rood and Kerry boats were attacked.
Rood: Kerry, followed by one member of his crew, jumped ashore and chased a VC behind a hooch--a thatched hut--maybe 15 yards inland from the ambush site. Some who were there that day recall the man being wounded as he ran. Neither I nor Jerry Leeds, our boat's leading petty officer with whom I've checked my recollection of all these events, recalls that, which is no surprise. Recollections of those who go through experiences like that frequently differ.
With our troops involved in the sweep of the first ambush site, Richard Lamberson, a member of my crew, and I also went ashore to search the area. I was checking out the inside of the hooch when I heard gunfire nearby.
Not long after that, Kerry returned, reporting that he had killed the man he chased behind the hooch. He also had picked up a loaded B-40 rocket launcher, which we took back to our base in An Thoi after the operation.
Rood disputed an account of the incident given by John O'Neill in his book "Unfit for Command," which describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager" in a "loincloth." Rood said, "I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore."
The Bronze Star
The most serious allegation in the ad is that Kerry received both the Bronze Star, his second-highest decoration, and his third purple heart, which allowed him to be sent home early, under false pretenses. But that account is flatly contradicted by Jim Rassmann, the former Army Lieutenant whom Kerry rescued that day.
Van O'Dell, a former Navy enlisted man who says he was the gunner on another Swift Boat, states in his affidavit that he was "a few yards away" from Kerry's boat on March 13, 1969 when Kerry pulled Rassman from the water. According to the official medal citations, Kerry's boat was under enemy fire at the time, and Kerry had been wounded when an enemy mine exploded near his own boat. O'Dell insists "there was no fire" at the time, adding: "I did not hear any shots, nor did any hostile fire hit any boats" other than his own, PCF-3.
Others in the ad back up that account. Jack Chenoweth, who was a Lieutenant (junior grade) commanding PCF-3, said Kerry's boat "fled the scene" after a mine blast disabled PCF-3, and returned only later "when it was apparent that there was no return fire." And Larry Thurlow, who says he commanded a third Swift Boat that day, says "Kerry fled while we stayed to fight," and returned only later "after no return fire occurred."
Kerry Ad "Heart"
John Kerry: I was born in Fitzsimmons Army Hospital in Colorado, my dad was serving in the Army air corps. Both of my parents taught me about public service. I enlisted because I believed in service to country. I thought it was important, if you had a lot of privileges as I had had, to go to a great university like Yale, that you give something back to your country.
Del Sandusky: The decisions that he made saved our lives.
Jim Rassmann: When he pulled me out of the river, he risked his life to save mine.
Narrator: For more than 30 years John Kerry has served America.
Vanessa Kerry: If you look at my father's time and service to this country, whether it has been a veteran, prosecutor, or Senator, he has shown an ability to fight for things that matter.
Teresa Kerry: John is the face of someone who is hopeful, who is generous of spirit, and of heart.
John Kerry : We're a country of optimists...we're the can-do people, and we just need to believe in ourselves again.
Narrator: A lifetime of service and strength: John Kerry for President.
A serious discrepancy in the account of Kerry's accusers came to light Aug. 19, when the Washington Post reported that Navy records describe Thurlow himself as dodging enemy bullets during the same incident, for which Thurlow also was awarded the Bronze Star.
Thurlow's citation - which the Post said it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act - says that "all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks" after the first explosion. The citation describes Thurlow as leaping aboard the damaged PCF-3 and rendering aid "while still under enemy fire," and adds: "His actions and courage in the face of enemy fire . . . were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."
A separate document that recommended Thurlow for that decoration states that all Thurlow's actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire." It was signed by Elliott.
The Post quoted Thurlow as saying he had lost his citation years earlier and had been under the impression that he received the award for aiding the damaged boat and its crew, and that his own award would be "fraudulent" if based on his facing enemy fire. The Post reported that, after hearing the citation read to him, Thurlow said: "It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case. . . My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting. . . . I am here to state that we weren't under fire."
None of those in the attack ad by the Swift Boat group actually served on Kerry's boat. And their statements are contrary to the accounts of Kerry and those who served under him.
Jim Rassmann was the Army Special Forces lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water. Rassmann has said all along that he was under sniper fire from both banks of the river when Kerry, wounded, helped him aboard. Rassmann is featured in an earlier Kerry ad, in fact, (see script at left) saying "he (Kerry) risked his life to save mine."
On Aug. 10, Rassmann wrote a vivid account of the rescue in the Wall Street Journal that contradicts the Kerry accusers. Rassmann said that after the first explosion that disabled PCF-3:
Rassmann: Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.
When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.
Rassmann said he recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for that action, and learned only later that the Bronze Star had been awarded instead. "To this day I still believe he deserved the Silver Star for his courage," he wrote. Rassmann described himself as a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. "I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans," Rassmann said. But he said Kerry "will be a great commander in chief."
"This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency," Rassmann said. "Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam."
On Aug. 22 the Washington Post quoted a new eyewitness in support of Kerry's version. The Post said it had independently contacted Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat directly behind Kerry's, and that Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the "clack, clack, clack" of enemy AK-47 assault rifles.
Langhofer: There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river.
The Third Purple Heart
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth further says Kerry didn't deserve his third purple heart, which was received for shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on right forearm. The Swift Boat group's affidavits state that the wound in Kerry's backside happened earlier that day in an accident. "Kerry inadvertently wounded himself in the fanny," Thurlow said in his affidavit, "by throwing a grenade too close (to destroy a rice supply) and suffered minor shrapnel wounds."
The grenade incident is actually supported by Kerry's own account, but the shrapnel wound was only part of the basis for Kerry's third purple heart according to official documents. The evidence here is contradictory.
Kerry's account is in the book Tour of Duty by Douglas Brinkley, who based it largely on Kerry's own Vietnam diaries and 12 hours of interviews with Kerry. "I got a piece of small grenade in my ass from one of the rice-bin explosions and then we started to move back to the boats," Kerry is quoted as saying on page 313. In that account, Kerry says his arm was hurt later, after the mine blast that disabled PCF-3, when a second explosion rocked his own boat. "The concussion threw me violently against the bulkhead on the door and I smashed my arm," Kerry says on page 314.
And according to a Navy casualty report released by the Kerry campaign, the third purple heart was received for "shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94," Kerry's boat. As a matter of strict grammar, the report doesn't state that both injuries were received as a result of the mine explosion, only the arm injury.
The official citation for Kerry's Bronze Star refers only to his arm injury, not to the shrapnel wound to his rear. It says he performed the rescue "from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain." The description of Kerry's arm "bleeding" isn't consistent with the description of a "contusion," or bruise.
Rassmann's Aug. 10 Wall Street Journal article states that Kerry's arm was "wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat," which would make that wound clearly enemy-inflicted.
In any case, even a "friendly fire" injury can qualify for a purple heart "as long as the 'friendly' projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment," according to the website of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. All agree that rice was being destroyed that day on the assumption that it otherwise might feed Viet Cong fighters.
Another major discrepancy raises a question of how close Kerry's accusers actually were to the rescue of Rassmann. Tour of Duty describes Rassmann's rescue (and the sniper fire) as happening "several hundred yards back" from where the crippled PCF-3 was lying, not "a few yards away," the distance from which the anti-Kerry veterans claim to have witnessed the incident.
First Purple Heart
Two who appear in the ad say Kerry didn't deserve his first purple heart. Louis Letson, a medical officer and Lieutenant Commander, says in the ad that he knows Kerry is lying about his first purple heart because “I treated him for that.” However, medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to FactCheck.org do not list Letson as the “person administering treatment” for Kerry’s injury on December 3, 1968 . The person who signed this sick call report is J.C. Carreon, who is listed as treating Kerry for shrapnel to the left arm.
In his affidavit, Letson says Kerry's wound was self-inflicted and does not merit a purple heart. But that's based on hearsay, and disputed hearsay at that. Letson says “the crewman with Kerry told me there was no hostile fire, and that Kerry had inadvertently wounded himself with an M-79 grenade.” But the Kerry campaign says the two crewmen with Kerry that day deny ever talking to Letson.
On Aug. 17 the Los Angeles Times quoted Letson as giving a slightly different account than the one in his affidavit. The Times quotes him as saying he heard only third-hand that there had been no enemy fire. According to the Times, Letson said that what he heard about Kerry's wounding came not from other crewmen directly, but through some of his own subordinates. Letson was quoted as saying the information came from crewmen who were "just talking to my guys … There was not a firefight -- that's what the guys related. They didn't remember any firing from shore."
Letson also insisted to the Times that he was the one who treated Kerry, removing a tiny shard of shrapnel from Kerry's arm using a pair of tweezers. Letson said Carreon, whose signature appears on Kerry's medical record, was an enlisted man who routinely made record entries on his behalf. Carreon signed as "HM1," indicating he held the enlisted rank of Hospital Corpsman First Class.
Also appearing in the ad is Grant Hibbard, Kerry’s commanding officer at the time. Hibbard’s affidavit says that he “turned down the Purple Heart request,” and recalled Kerry's injury as a "tiny scratch less than from a rose thorn."
That doesn't quite square with Letson's affidavit, which describes shrapnel "lodged in Kerry's arm" (though "barely.")
Hibbard also told the Boston Globe in an interview in April 2004 that he eventually acquiesced about granting Kerry the purple heart.
Hibbard: I do remember some questions on it. . .I finally said, OK if that's what happened. . . do whatever you want
Kerry got the first purple heart after Hibbard left to return to the US .
McCain Speaks Up
Sen. John McCain -- who has publicly endorsed Bush and even appealed for donations to the President's campaign -- came to Kerry's defense on this. McCain didn't witness the events in question, of course. But he told the Associated Press in an August 5 interview:
McCain : I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.
At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.
Sources
Michael Kranish,“Veteran Retracts Criticism of Kerry ,” The Boston Globe, 6 August 2004 .
Jodi Wilgoren, "Vietnam Veterans Buy Ads to Attack Kerry," The New York Times, 5 August 2004.
Douglas Brinkley, Tour of Duty, (NY, HarperCollins, 2004).
Jim Rassmann, "Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush," Wall Street Journal, 10 Aug 2004: A10.
Ron Fournier, "McCain Condemns Anti-Kerry Ad," Associated Press, 5 August 2004.
Michael Kranish, "Kerry Faces Questions Over Purple Heart," The Boston Globe , 14 April 2004: A1.
Michael Kranish, "Heroism, and growing concern about war," The Boston Globe, 16 June 2003.
Maria L. La Ganga and Stephen Braun, "Race to the White House: Veterans Battle Over Truth; An ad calls Kerry a liar. His Vietnam crew sees a hero. Memories, and agendas, are in conflict." Los Angeles Times 17 Aug 2004: A1.
Michael Dobbs, "Records Counter A Critic Of Kerry; Fellow Skipper's Citation Refers To Enemy Fire" Washington Post, 19 Aug. 2004: A1.
William B. Rood, "FEB. 28, 1969: ON THE DONG CUNG RIVER
`This is what I saw that day'" Chicago Tribune 22 Aug 2004.
Michael Dobbs, "Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete: Critics Fail to Disprove Kerry's Version of Vietnam War Episode," Washington Post 22 Aug 2004: A1.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeskibuff
And that argument would be without merit. Saddam was supposed to comply with inspectors, as per his terms of surrender. He chose to obfuscate and play shell games. We had TWELVE years of patience. That's certainly no "rush to war".
First, finding WMD was not a US mandate, but a UN mandate. Secondly Hans Blix at the time we chased out the weapons inspectors had openly said that Hussein WAS openly cooperating, just not in the fashion that US had desired. Since this is a UN mandate, it is up to them to decide the level of cooperation, not us. However your beloved Bush wanted to run the show, and now we have a mess of epic proportions on our hands.
Saying we had tweleve years of patience doesn't quite square when you consider the fact we, at this time, on this day, have found nothing whatsoever in terms of WMD. If we waited twelve years, what's a few more months considering it could have saved more than 1,000 american lives, 5-6,000 injuries, billions and billions of dollars countless innocent Iraqi women and children, and the embarrasement of the Abu grabe debacle that has killed our world standing.. Some could argue that our aggressive stance on this issue, and the fact that WMD cannot be found has had the effect of devalueing our worth to zero. Can you imagine us going to China and bringing up civil rights issues? Wouldn't fly with them based on what they have seen.
Quote:
Had you been paying close attention, you might have noticed how Syria is on the Human Rights Commission and the U.S. is not! Doesn't that say anything to you? Syria?? A haven for terrorism and VIOLATION of human rights? The U.N. has lost its credibility. The oil-for-food scandal is just one more indication that the U.N. has turned into a corrupt organization which has devalued to the point of worthlessness.
You are assuming that I don't know about Syria. It's these same kinds of assumptions that has got our country into this quagmire in Iraq. Putting Syria on the human rights commission was a mistake, just like we made our fair shair of mistakes, should this country once again be dismissed on the world stage just like you are willing to dismiss the UN? We went to war, the only place we guarded after the combat was over was the oil ministry. It remained the only building left unplundered by Iraqi's. Weapons were stolen from UNGUARDED weapons stockpiles, Lab's had been broken into with some lethal chemical drums found empty, ancient treasures had been looted because we didn't protect their museums. The electrical grid which was once minimally operating was not protected, order was not restored and peoples lives were not protected, yet we are standing guard in front of the oil ministry. Does that make any sense to you? Because of our mistakes, we now have a out of control insurgency, with terrorist coming from out of the country to wreak havoc because we didn't block and control the borders. France, Russia, and Germany cannot be relied upon, but we can't even get the countries within the coalition(if that is what you call it) or not currently in it to put combat troops on the ground. We can't even get them to stay in this mess as we already have countries pulling out, or about to. You have this, the largest debt in our history, tax cuts that benefit the rich, a middle class shrinking faster these last four years than in the previous 20, jobs leaving because of the tax benefits given by this administration, a heath care system that is out of control, and it took some else to mention it(he wouldn't because he has given tax cuts to drug companies) a country so divided, so bitter, so angry, and so without a purpose but to get themselves out of a mess, I am willing to give someone else a chance to do better than he is.
I understand fully that Syria is on the Human rights commission, and the UN might not be credible at all. But does that give us the right to invade a soverign country based on a assumption, and not fact. We have corrupt leaders in our country, how do we think that we should be going elsewhere without taking care of our own problems.
Quote:
Wishful thinking on your part. The inspections team had YEARS to do their job. They could reach NO such conclusion as long as Saddam kept up the shell game. With the mass graves found in Iraq, how could you possibly say that more Iraqis would be alive if we stayed out of there? Saddam murdered HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of innocent people. We're killing the Iraqis who are shooting at us!
Is it wishful thinking, we haven't found $hit there, not one damn thing. Hans Blix hadn't found a thing during his search, we, after the war haven't found a damn thing either. It takes years to search a country the size of California. What he had was a bluff, and the inspections would have bourne that out. Saddam murder hundreds of thousands, however the dictator of North Korea has allowed(and killed) millions to die. Why haven't we gone after him? No resources that's why. Afganistan was a legitimate war, but we also had a alternative reason for going in there, and why we fought so hard to get the Russians out, a pipeline to ship natural gas across that country. We fought to get Iraq out of Kuwait because they would have controlled a huge portion of mideast oil had we let them stay. The Bush's have a huge stake in oil, and it seems rather ironic that both Bush's have fought wars in countries with a huge oil reserves. I am not a conspiracy kind of guy, but this does bring me pause, and make me wonder why we took it upon ourselves to deal with Iraq, even when we knew that they had no ties to terrorist, did no business with terrorist, and even had sights on doing business with terrorist. We relied on unsure, and unlitmately failed intelligence which Bush himself cut funding to in 2001
Quote:
That also happened during the Clinton administration. Were you complaining then?
Not at nearly the rate it has happened with this current adminstration. Clinton never rewarded business to take jobs out of this country, Bush has. Clinton never gave tax cuts to the rich, while giving the middle class three hundred measly dollars, and the poor next to nothing. Bush has, and has vowed to do it again. Clinton DID try and deal with healthcare, and was given a bad wrap for it. Bush has done NOTHING on healthcare and now we have 40million(about 20-25 million more than when he took office) without healthcare.
Quote:
Nope. Sorry. The Dimocrats are responsible for that. Before Bush even took the oath of office, he was being ripped apart by Dimocrats. They even blamed him for the downswing in the economy WHILE CLINTON WAS STILL PRESIDENT. They never gave Bush a fair shake and no matter WHAT Bush would do, they would criticize it. We get attacked on 9/11, and Dimocrats complained that Bush sat for a whole 7 minutes when first notified of it. But when he takes decisive action, he gets criticized. Damned if he does. Damned if he doesn't. There are MANY instances of that kind of unfair treatment of Bush.
Sorry Jesky, but that is not the truth at all. Bush wanted to change the constitution to support marriage, but penalize and marginalize gays. Gays hate him, and the christian right because of their influence in this. This happen during HIS watch, not Clintons. Bush got this country in a financial mess with increased spending, and tax cuts to the wealthy, not Clinton. The middle class has shrunk more in 4 years than in the previous 20 years. Bush has watered down conservation and wildlife protection rules, not Clinton, he strengthen them. Conservation and naturalist hate him. Bush threw his support behind getting rid of affrimative action. Now blacks and Latino's hate him(at least those not in the christian right). As long as I have been living, I have not seen such a variety of organizations, people, or whole parties hate a president so much. Arabs loathe him because he has disengeged from the palistinian issue thereby allowing terrorist to kill jews, and Jews to kill 4 times as many palistinians in return. .
Bush had a record in Texas before he came to Washington. Texas was the most polluted state, had one of the worst education systems, and was not exactly working on a balanced budget. He also did not win the poplular vote, had no mandate, and millions of blacks were alienated to get him in office. Our highest court(or which a majority was picked by daddy Bush) decided this vote. The Democrats where attacking the system that would allow all of this to take place.
Quote:
Our global economy is changing and there's not a thing that Kerry, Bush or ANYONE can do about it. Keeping some industries alive is like demanding that companies who produced slide rules be kept afloat. That's nonsense and you know it. The "tax cut to the wealthy" is just another Dimocrat talking point. The cut was even across the board. Poorer people didn't get as much back BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T PAY AS MUCH INTO THE SYSTEM. It's that simple.
s.
Sorry man, it is a known fact that these tax cuts help the rich more than the poor or middle class. Using an across the board system is loaded toward the rich by default. You should know this. Responsible tax cuts benefits those who need it the worst, not who paid the most. Bush designed a system of tax cuts that minimally benefitted those who needed it the worst, and gave the most to those who needed it the least. It is also well established that trickled down economics does not work(which is what this tax cut was designed to emulate). We knew this before he even took office, and If I knew this before, he should have unless this tax cut to the rich is a payback.
I clearly understand the economy is changing. So why not change with the economy. Reward companies that keep jobs here with tax benefits and write offs. Give compaines an incentive to stay in this country and compete. If europe can manage to keep the compainies in their respective countries, why do we have a problem. One thing is for certain, companies that are shipping job abroad don't make slide rules. They are shipping engineering jobs(which require a very good education), medical transcribing, office administration, Customer service jobs involving idividuals private information and the beat goes on. Some of these jobs are highly specialized, and require masters and PH.D to do. How in the heck can Bush's education initiatives help somebody who already has more than 12 years of higher education? By calling the tax cut to the wealthy just a
talking point, just goes to show just how deep a Bush supporert is willing to sink their heads in the sand and ignore this administrations arrogance, lack of forethought, and willingness to sacrafice the reputation of this country.
Do I think anyone mind would be changed from any of these words. No. Some people are willing to sacrafice everything just to re-elect one person. The only President in our history who claims to have perfect record regarding decision making(refused to admit in debates that he made ANY errors, not even one!!!)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeskibuff
How about we look at it from the opposite angle? Years ago, California liberals decided to load up corporations with all sorts of taxes and regulations. More taxation means more money in the coffers, right? What HAPPENED was that it became economically undesireable for many companies to function in California, so they moved their businesses to more friendly states, like Nevada. The loss of those businesses in California meant less tax collected both from the corporations and the employees that worked for them. So, more taxation resulted in less tax income. Get it?
That's how liberal destruction works. Then they try to blame the loss of jobs on Republicans.
Sorry, but that's an oversimplification of California's situation and the wrong angle. For my job, I've done survey research and dozens of business interviews throughout the state over the last 10 years, and I can tell you that business taxes and regulations are consistently way down the list of costs that threaten to drive businesses under or out of state. Sure, businessowners will complain about taxes and regulations (who doesn't?) but those are rarely the most important factors that determine whether or not businesses stay put or move. Depending on the sector, the business climate factors center more around bigger concerns like labor force availablity/cost/training, cost and availability of business space, access to business partners and support services, and access to customers and markets. To distill it all down to taxes and regulations is one of the biggest myths that opportunist politicians have perpetuated in Calif.
During the dotcom boom, California lowered several of its taxes because the state was awash in huge surpluses. But, those rollbacks did absolutely nothing to affect the market forces that caused that whole house of cards to fall. In that frenzied environment, businesses went under or moved because their venture capital ran out, their markets were insufficient to support the scale of their activities, they had to compete and overpay for a limited supply of labor, business space was unavailable and/or overpriced, etc. Taxes and regulations were but an inconsequential factor in that implosion.
The Nevada example is not applicable because the actual volume of businesses that have relocated there doesn't amount to much, relative to the size of the California economy. Reno and the outskits of Las Vegas have had limited success with economic development, but the annual growth of any of the major economic regions in California will dwarf what Nevada's accomplished via the smokestack chasing approach. Those businesses that did relocate there are typically more in the marginal backoffice or warehousing operations, which are at a competitive disadvantage in California because the state's economy and its business climate assets are generally more advantageous to higher value added functions.
Nevada's a state with low taxes, but it also has a less skilled labor force, lower investment in higher education, underdeveloped trade infrastructure, limited base of existing business services, smaller markets, and a less diverse economic base. Businesses that are in high value added sectors such as biotechnology are not going to locate in Nevada just because it has lower taxes. They'll locate in California or a comparable region that has a skilled labor force in place, access to world class universities and sources of technology transfer, and a diverse base of business partners and suppliers.
-
Quote:
Clinton never rewarded business to take jobs out of this country
Sure he did, it was called NAFTA. -Bruce
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSE
Your not taking your thinking on the economy far enough. I'm no economic master but here is a very basic explaination
Taxes are cut. That puts more money in people's pockets. People spend this money on goods and services or invest. Because of increased sales and investment, production goes up. Increased production and sales means companies make more money. Companies making more money can hire more employees, expand, grow. Now that more people and companies are working and making more money they pay more taxes.
That's a very simplistic explanation so maybe someone else can chime in with a more detail explaination.
Another way to look at it is, consumer spending drives the economy. More money in your pocket promotes more cosumer spending.
In terms of your vote, maybe you should "bone-up" on the issues and understand them so you can make a informed decision. That would make a worthwhile difference.
JSE
Hey JSE,
Why don't you "bone-up" after all according to Nobody's article Bush supports just live in a dream world. Use a little common sense; it works wonders.
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffKnob
OK Knob, I'll do that. Thanks for setting me straight.
JSE
-
What I'm not seeing is an argument FOR Kerry, only against Bush.
No wonder, with Kerrys' record!
At least we know what Bush will do. Hardly a strong endorsement, but Kerrys' hardly a strong contender.
Unless you count his magic wand. You know, the one that will "fix" health care, help all citizens at all times for all reasons, balance the budget, while keeping a middle class tax cut, build a coalition including all our enemies, keep soldiers from being shot, all while relegating terrorists to a "nuisance".
What a guy. No wonder his supporters are closer to reality! Got more of that stuff?
Pete
-
Of course there are going to be those that will vote against him just because he is a Republican. It is not the right reason, but I know people who will only vote their party, Democrat or Republican. Bush is the incumbent, and if someone is not happy with his 4 years, it is perfectly acceptable to vote for Kerry. I am sure in 1996, many people used this rational in voting for Dole. Again, perfectly acceptable.
I think overall Bush has done a decent job in the war on terror. I don't think we should have gone in to Iraq. At the very least, I want to be told the truth. If we in fact went in for freedom and democracy, when are we going to China? Oh, that's right, they supply us with cheap labor. While I am all for lower taxes, I would not lower them during a time like this. He KNEW that we were going to have increased spending. I don't make a lot of money, I don't live in a $10,000,000 house. I can barely afford the one I live in, so I am not going to quit my job. It's called budgeting, and Bush neds to get a clue on this. I don't understand conservatives supporting him. He never saw a spending bill he didn't love. Less money in, more money out. I wish I could live like that with no consequence. It will have to be paid back somehow. The next Democrat that gets in will probably raise taxes. This will be to balance the budget. Both sides will argue against cuts in their pet projects, and the Democrat will be called a "tax and spend liberal." Well, is Bush a "spend and spend conservative?"
I am confused on Kerry's record. Does he show up in the Senate or not? In one sentence I hear that he isn't there 90% or more of the time, then next I hear he votes hundreds of times against defending the country. How many votes are there on defense, and is this all he shows up for? I would like for a Republican to tell me which it is, as they are making these claims. And while we are on this subject, didn't Cheney recommend the cuts in the late 80's/early90's that he did in fact vote to cut?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRO
I am confused on Kerry's record. Does he show up in the Senate or not? In one sentence I hear that he isn't there 90% or more of the time, then next I hear he votes hundreds of times against defending the country. How many votes are there on defense, and is this all he shows up for? I would like for a Republican to tell me which it is, as they are making these claims. And while we are on this subject, didn't Cheney recommend the cuts in the late 80's/early90's that he did in fact vote to cut?
I think Kerry has been absent in last year or so due to his run for office. I personally believe if your going to run for office, you should give up your current position. Some do, some don't. You clearly can't do both. Is that fair to the people that voted to put you there to be a Senator?
In regard to Cheney or any Senator or Congressman , you have to look through the political rhetoric. Did Cheney vote in favor of certain cuts on military programs. Sure, but that does not mean he does not support the military. It might mean that program A is outdated and does not make sense anymore. We now need program B. Does the US need more F-15 fighters or does it need the newer more advance F-22? Older programs have to be cut to make room for newer ones. You can apply this logic to Dems. or Reps. The key is to look deeper, not just take a candidates version.
JSE
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRO
I am confused on Kerry's record. Does he show up in the Senate or not? In one sentence I hear that he isn't there 90% or more of the time, then next I hear he votes hundreds of times against defending the country. How many votes are there on defense, and is this all he shows up for? I would like for a Republican to tell me which it is, as they are making these claims. And while we are on this subject, didn't Cheney recommend the cuts in the late 80's/early90's that he did in fact vote to cut?
SRO - Here's Kerry's record on intelligence issues. www.factcheck.org, which incidentally shows that both campaigns are twisting the truth, has other assessments of his votes on taxes and defense spending. They may have attendance assessments as well.
Would Kerry Throw Us To The Wolves?
A misleading Bush ad criticizes Kerry for proposing to cut intelligence spending -- a decade ago, by 4%, when some Republicans also proposed cuts.
October 23, 2004
Modified: October 23, 2004
eMail to a friend Printer Friendly Version
Summary
A new Bush ad claims Kerry supported cuts in intelligence “so deep they would have weakened America ’s defenses” against terrorists, and shows a pack of hungry-looking wolves preparing to attack. Actually, the cut Kerry proposed in 1994 amounted to less than 4 percent, as part of a proposal to cut many programs to reduce the deficit.
And in 1995 Porter Goss, who is now Bush’s CIA Director, co-sponsored an even stronger deficit-elimination measure that would have cut CIA personnel by 20 percent over five years. When asked about that at his confirmation hearings he didn't disavow it.
Analysis
The Bush ad released Oct. 22 is called “wolves,” and is a direct appeal to fear.
Bush Cheney ‘04
“Wolves”
Announcer: In an increasingly dangerous world… Even after the first terrorist attack on America … John Kerry and the liberals in Congress voted to slash America ’s intelligence operations. By 6 billion dollars… Cuts so deep they would have weakened America ’s defenses. And weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm..
(On Screen: Several wolves eye the camera, as if preparing to attack.)
Bush: I’m George W Bush and I approve this message.
Speak Softly But
Use Scary Words and Pictures
Using a soft-spoken female announcer to deliver the harsh message, the ad shows blurry images of a dark forest and a pack of hungry-looking wolves eying the camera and apparently contemplating an attack.
The announcer says that “after the first terrorist attack on America ” Kerry “voted to slash America ’s intelligence operations.” The ad is misleading in several ways, some of which we went over last March when President Bush first accused Kerry of trying to “gut” the intelligence budget.
Here are the ways this ad misleads voters:
•Old news: The “first terrorist attack” the ad refers to didn't happen September 11, 2001, as some listeners assume. It actually was more than a decade ago, in 1993, when a truck bomb went off in the parking garage under one of the World Trade Center towers. In fact, Kerry was supporting regular increases in intelligence spending for several years prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001.
•Exaggerated Wording: Kerry never proposed a single $6-billion cut in intelligence spending. He did propose S.1826 (see "supporting documents" at right) which included a $1-billion cut in 1994. That measure also would have frozen intelligence spending at that reduced level through 1998, allowing it to rise only by the rate of inflation. That could fairly be called a $5-billion cut spread over five years.
Total intelligence spending is a classified figure, but was estimated at the time to be $27 billion per year. So, the cut Kerry proposed amounted to an estimated 3.7 percent -- hardly a proposal to "slash" expenditures. That measure was debated on the Senate floor and on Feb 10,1994 it was defeated 75-20 with 38 Democratic Senators voting against it.
The following year Kerry introduced another deficit-reduction package, S.1290 (see "supporting documents" at right). This one would have lowered the ceiling for intelligence spending by $300 million for five years starting in 1996. That would have amounted to a reduction of just over 1 percent of estimated intelligence spending.
Not only was this proposed reduction a small one, it came at a time when it had just become known that one intelligence agency had been hoarding $1 billion in unspent funds from its secret appropriations. Kerry's proposal died without a hearing, but a similar Republican-sponsored measure eventually became law (see below).
Saying that either of these proposals would “slash” spending is an exaggeration. Saying that a 4 percent or 1 percent cut would have “weakened America ’s defenses” is an opinion which the Bush campaign has a perfect right to state, but it is not a fact.
•Missing Context: The ad doesn’t tell the whole story. Some Republicans also supported similar cuts in intelligence spending at the time, including Bush’s current CIA Director Porter Goss.
Goss co-sponsored a draconian, deficit-elimination bill in 1995 (see "supporting documents" at right) that would have cut the number of CIA employees by 20 percent or more over five years. Goss wasn't the main author -- he signed onto an 1,188-page bill authored by Gerald Solomon, the chairman of the House Rules Committee, of which Goss was a member. The measure died without a hearing and had no prospect of passage, as it called for elimination of the Departments of Education, Energy and Commerce among other things. When questioned about his co-sponsorship of the bill during his confirmation hearings in September Goss said only, "the record speaks for the record."
Another Republican-sponsored cut similar to Kerry's proposed 1995 measure actually became law. On the same day Kerry proposed his $1.5-billion cut spread over five years, the Senate passed by voice vote an amendment to eliminate $1 billion in intelligence funds for fiscal year 1996. That measure was proposed by Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and a companion measure was co-sponsored by Kerry and Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama. The cut eventually became law as part of a House-Senate package endorsed by the Republican leadership. Specter explained at the time that the $1-billion cut was intended to recapture funds that had been appropriated for spy satellites, but which had gone unspent by the National Reconnaissance Office.
Sources
Dana Milbank, “Goss Backed '95 Bill to Slash Intelligence; Plan Would Have Cut Personnel 20%,” Washington Post, 24 Aug 2004 : A3.
"Hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee: Nomination of Rep. Porter J. Goss to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency," transcript, The Federal News Service, Inc., 14 Sep 2004.
103d Congress, 2d Session, S. 1826, "To reduce the deficit for fiscal years 1994 through 1998," 3 Feb. 1994.
104th Congress, 1st Session, S.1290, "To reduce the deficit," 25 Sep 1995.
104th Congress, 1st Session H.R. 1923, "To balance the budget of the United States Government by restructuring Government, reducing Federal spending, eliminating the deficit, limiting bureaucracy, and restoring federalism," 25 Jun 2004.
Related Articles
Bush Strains Facts Re: Kerry's Plan To Cut Intelligence Funding in '90's
President claims 1995 Kerry plan would "gut" the intelligence services. It was a 1% cut, and key Republicans approved something similar.
View Bush Ad "Wolves"
Title page and pertinent section of H.R. 1923, the 1995 bill co-sponsored by Porter Goss, which would have cut Intelligence personnel 20 percent over five years.
(.pdf - 20 KB)
Title page and pertinent sections of S.1826, Kerry's 1994 deficit-reduction bill, calling for a $1-billion cut and five-year freeze in intelligence spending.
(.pdf - 26 KB)
Title page and pertinent section of S.1290, Kerry's 1995 deficit-reduction bill to cut the ceiling for intelligence spending by $300 million for five years.
(.pdf - 12 KB)
FactCheck.org will send each new FactCheck and Special Report directly to your mailbox (disable pop-up blocker first).
Sign Up Now
Copyright 2004 Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
Judgments expressed are those of FactCheck.org’s staff, not the Annenberg Center
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSE
I think Kerry has been absent in last year or so due to his run for office. I personally believe if your going to run for office, you should give up your current position. Some do, some don't. You clearly can't do both. Is that fair to the people that voted to put you there to be a Senator?
In regard to Cheney or any Senator or Congressman , you have to look through the political rhetoric. Did Cheney vote in favor of certain cuts on military programs. Sure, but that does not mean he does not support the military. It might mean that program A is outdated and does not make sense anymore. We now need program B. Does the US need more F-15 fighters or does it need the newer more advance F-22? Older programs have to be cut to make room for newer ones. You can apply this logic to Dems. or Reps. The key is to look deeper, not just take a candidates version.
JSE
I agree that you should not be able to do both. But, shouldnt it be stated that he has missed most of his votes in the last year. They are trying to portray it as he hasn't been there at any time in his career. Or that he has, a few minutes later. Oh well, if you didn't see the debates and only relied on out 5 second soundbite news companies, you would only get part of it anyway.
On the other hand, if you really set this precedent, then the sitting President would also have to give up his seat. Or, since we the President can sign documents anywhere, maybe we should allow Congress to absentee vote while campaigning. This could obviously lead to abuse if not worded properly in legislation.
I also do not think the incumbent should be able to use Air Force One ( or Two ) on any campaign trip, or fund raising trip, even if it is tied in with official business. Because of this, I am financially supporting the Bush re-election campaign. If they do, the cost should be reimbursed from their campaign funds. Maybe this is the case, I've just never heard of it happening.
In terms of the weapons programs, I once again agree. But most conservatives only see Kerry as having these positions. Check Factcheck.org. They seem to be the only non-partisan site for information. I don't remember for sure, but I believe they state that Kerry has only voted twice against the military budget. This was when we were trying to cut out many outdated programs from the cold war. I would ask everyone to look deeper in to both candidates, as there seems to be a double standard from many conservatives ( not necessarily you ) on Kerry's voting record here.
-
Here's a rather unusual endorsement from the American Conservative...
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html
links to similar articles can be found here...
http://inprogress.typepad.com/republicanswitchers/
Unfortunately, for Kerry, more anti-Bush rather than pro-Kerry, which does indeed seem to be a trend. Still, that's kinda the way it goes running against an incumbent.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRO
Of course there are going to be those that will vote against him just because he is a Republican. It is not the right reason, but I know people who will only vote their party, Democrat or Republican. Bush is the incumbent, and if someone is not happy with his 4 years, it is perfectly acceptable to vote for Kerry. I am sure in 1996, many people used this rational in voting for Dole. Again, perfectly acceptable.
Well said. But it only goes so far, would you vote for Kusinich because he isn't Bush? One should still do his/her homework.
Voting your party is voting FOR someone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRO
I think overall Bush has done a decent job in the war on terror. I don't think we should have gone in to Iraq. At the very least, I want to be told the truth. If we in fact went in for freedom and democracy, when are we going to China? Oh, that's right, they supply us with cheap labor. While I am all for lower taxes, I would not lower them during a time like this. He KNEW that we were going to have increased spending. I don't make a lot of money, I don't live in a $10,000,000 house. I can barely afford the one I live in, so I am not going to quit my job. It's called budgeting, and Bush neds to get a clue on this. I don't understand conservatives supporting him. He never saw a spending bill he didn't love. Less money in, more money out. I wish I could live like that with no consequence. It will have to be paid back somehow. The next Democrat that gets in will probably raise taxes. This will be to balance the budget. Both sides will argue against cuts in their pet projects, and the Democrat will be called a "tax and spend liberal." Well, is Bush a "spend and spend conservative?"
To say there's no difference between dealing with slightly different countries like, say, Iraq and China, is at best naive, at worst disingenuous. We all know why we went into Iraq. We were wrong, from the short view. So pull out? Screw the Iraqis (again)? Are we going to stand with them, or not? Or do we just pay lip service? The world (including the Arabs) is watching.
We will always have increased spending, we're talking about politicians fer Petes' sake! And an increasingly spoiled electorate. Heath care! But balance the budget. Right. Wait! We can tax the rich till they leave. Which is what they will do, eventually.
I agree that Bush is no spending lightweight. I do not believe he's a true conservative. Nope. So elect Kerry? lol. Clinton was FAR more of a centrist in reality than Kerry. Heck, according to his actual voting record, ANYBODY is more centrist than Kerry. Oops, doesn't matter, after all, we're only voting to get rid of Bush.
That will straighten everything out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRO
I am confused on Kerry's record. Does he show up in the Senate or not? In one sentence I hear that he isn't there 90% or more of the time, then next I hear he votes hundreds of times against defending the country. How many votes are there on defense, and is this all he shows up for? I would like for a Republican to tell me which it is, as they are making these claims. And while we are on this subject, didn't Cheney recommend the cuts in the late 80's/early90's that he did in fact vote to cut?
He missed 64% of his votes in 03, over 80% this year. Previous to the campaign (2 years ago?), when he cared to vote, he never met a tax dollar he didn't like.
When the bill extending unemployment benifits failed to pass (employment was rising, but it was still a must for the budget balancing Libs), it lost by ONE VOTE. Guess who wasn't there? One of MANY missed votes.
He did make it to work to use a bill helping our boys as a political stunt - but he's not Bush.
I believe Cheney rec'd certain cuts as part of a reorganisation, NOT to loot the military for increased pork. Big difference! And what about the other hundreds of votes? Well, they don't matter 'cause it was the Cheney vote, the only one that matters, it proves the GOP is full of it.
Kerry should win 'cause, heck, he ain't Bush. That'll solve our problems!
Pete
|