2004 Presidential Election

[JOEBIALEK]

I received an email the other day entitled "He's done more damage than we thought" (author unknown) which is a list of failures attributed to President George W. Bush. After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes. I will summarize this list and comment where appropriate.

A. Foreign Policy

1. "Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community." While it is true that Congress authorized the President to invade Iraq, the fact that U.S. intelligence was so conflicting brings into question the judgment of Bush. I too was wrong in pushing for the removal of Hussein rather than staying focused on Bin Laden and the other terrorist organizations. Further, it is doubtful that Hussein could have developed WMD under the watchful eye of U.N.weapons inspectors and regular sorties flown by U.S. fighters throughout the no-fly zones (not to mention satellite surveillance). Kerry will need to initiate reconciliation through an international summit of European and Middle Eastern nations to begin the process of cleaning up this mess in Iraq (and worldwide). After the summit, the world will witness the slow withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and the quick advancement of U.N. troops into Iraq.

2. "Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found." In doing so, he has compromised the war on terrorism by directing 200 billion dollars for an overt combat operation as opposed to a covert operation. The United States has lost over 1,000 soldiers and thousands more are severely maimed prompting some to ask: hey hey GWB, how many kids will it be? The wiser choice would have been to invest 50 billion dollars in covert operations and 50 billion in homeland security. Besides, using conventional troops to fight terrorists is similar to the British army using regulars to fight French guerrillas during the Revolutionary War. Consequently, volunteerism for U.S. military service has sharply declined for all branches prompting rumors of a draft. Kerry will need to redirect resources to enhance homeland security while getting many more nations to share in troop and money commitments overseas especially in Iraq. He will also need to push Saudi Arabia and China to administer sanctions against Iran and North Korea to prevent further nuclear proliferation. Most importantly, however, he will need to fight terrorists overseas through covert operations.

B. Domestic Policy

1. "Bush spent the U.S. surplus and shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history." Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy along with irresponsible subsidizing of the war in Iraq has taken the U.S. budget from dark black to bright red all in the span of four years. Another four years of this squandering will bankrupt the United States. The remaining 100 billion dollars (from above) could have been invested in domestic programs like health care, education and the infrastructure. Kerry will need to revoke the tax cuts for the rich and reduce the United State's financial/military commitment in Iraq. These two changes (along with others) should result in a balanced budget in four years with the possibility of a return to a budget surplus in eight years.

2. "Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down. His first two years in office resulted in 2 million Americans losing their jobs AND he cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US History." His presidency has been the most "in-your-face" support of the wealthy whether it be tax cuts, the lack of an energy and environmental policy, failure to crack down hard on corporate corruption etc. Kerry will need to bring back former Clinton advisor Robert Ruben to turn the economy around just as was done after the failed administration of Bush Sr. Kerry will need to fast-track the operationalizing of alternative energy sources in order to reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil specifically and world oil in general. As a former prosecutor, he will need to push for long-term prison sentences for those committing white-collar crimes and reduce the difficulty of prosecuting the likes of Ken Ley.

Conclusion

The failures by George W. Bush, the viable alternative of John Kerry, the massive number of newly registered voters, the amount of attention being given by the American people on this election and the mass media trying to spin this race as being close are all clear signs of a Kerry landslide. On the November 2, 2004 the people will speak loud and clear.

[JSE]

". After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes."

Well then, I guess we can all just take your word for it! After all, it's been authenticated. I guess there is no point in me voting since Kerry is the verified weinner.

As far as the rest of your post. A nice recap of the Democratic talking points. Blah, Blah, Blah.

JSE

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

". After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes."

Well then, I guess we can all just take your word for it! After all, it's been authenticated. I guess there is no point in me voting since Kerry is the verified weinner.

As far as the rest of your post. A nice recap of the Democratic talking points. Blah, Blah, Blah.

JSE

Whether you are for G.W, or not, there is no denying that these talking points are true. Some of the conclusions I highly doubt though( I do not think the UN will help us with Iraq). Unfortunately for Bush supporters, there is no denying the facts.

[JSE]

Whether you are for G.W, or not, there is no denying that these talking points are true. Some of the conclusions I highly doubt though( I do not think the UN will help us with Iraq). Unfortunately for Bush supporters, there is no denying the facts.

Actually, these talking points are largely based on opinion and not actual facts. There are some facts within but the analysis of what these points mean is opinion. For example,

"1. "Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community."

Well yes, Bush is the 1st president to do this. Is that a good or bad thing? Did he do so against the will of the UN? Maybe, but who cares. Since when does the UN dictate how the US acts? I also like the statement "did so against the will of.......the vast majority of the international community." The "VAST" majority? France, Germany and Russia? They are considered the vast majority? What about the 30 plus other nations that supported us and are part of the coalition?

and,

2. "Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found." In doing so, he has compromised the war on terrorism by directing 200 billion dollars for an overt combat operation as opposed to a covert operation. "

Recklessly? That's simply an opinion. Compromised the war on terrorism? Again, opinion.

and,

2. "Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down."

Really? Actually, he entered office after the downslide had already begun and has now been turned around due to W.

Anyway, you get the picture. JOEBIALEK's post in spin. Nothing more.

JSE

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Actually, these talking points are largely based on opinion and not actual facts. There are some facts within but the analysis of what these points mean is opinion. For example,

"1. "Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community."

Well yes, Bush is the 1st president to do this. Is that a good or bad thing? Did he do so against the will of the UN? Maybe, but who cares. Since when does the UN dictate how the US acts? I also like the statement "did so against the will of.......the vast majority of the international community." The "VAST" majority? France, Germany and Russia? They are considered the vast majority? What about the 30 plus other nations that supported us and are part of the coalition?

Yes, he did so againist the will of the UN. And not just the voting members, but non voting members as well. We should care, look at the amount of money leaving home, and going to Iraq. We didn't have to shoulder this much financial responsibility in the first gulf war. It is now squarely on our backs, and part reason the deficit is so high. 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. Those thirty nations that are part of the coalition, how many total troops did they contribute. Let's see, Poland contributed soldiers to fight, England did also, Spain, but now they are pulled out, and Australia. These are the only countries that contributed fighting soldiers. The rest of the 26 sent support staff only. In the first gulf war, there were approximately 20 countries that contributed FIGHTING units, not support staff. IMO, what we have now is not a coalition. Especially since we have had to promise them something to get them to partcipate.

and,

2. "Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found." In doing so, he has compromised the war on terrorism by directing 200 billion dollars for an overt combat operation as opposed to a covert operation. "

Recklessly? That's simply an opinion. Compromised the war on terrorism? Again, opinion.

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. 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. The arguement that he(Hussein) would have given WMD to terrorist rings hollow when you think about the fact that Iraq didn't have any.
The arguement that he(Hussein) would have been a problem down the road also rings hollow since we have no way of knowing that at all(intelligence cannot predict the future)
It seems to me based on recent history, he(Hussein) was VERY preoccupied with Iran to pay us much attention(they were kicking his butt). As far as the compromise on terror, I think the world was with us on this, now I think based on the actions of Bush, we are pretty much in this alone. Especially in the way we are carrying this out.

Is the world better off with Hussein? Definately. But it would be better off without the leaders of North Korea, and Iran. Since we are in the business of deciding what is good for the world, let's just go in and take them out too, and any other that we deemed unsuitable for the world.

2. "Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down."

Really? Actually, he entered office after the downslide had already begun and has now been turned around due to W.

Nobody in their right mind believes that a President controls the economy. That is bigger than even the office of the President. Our economy is cyclical, and has nothing to do with the President. However this President does have a direct effect in how much we spend, and we have spent our way from a surplus, to a deficit, the largest deficit in the history of this country. He has yet to veto a single spending bill(great fiscal responsibility). During his watch, the desparity between the wealthy and the poor has grown wider. More people lost their health insurance during his watch than any other President, and he didn't even talk about it until somebody else did This country is divided in a way unheard of in it's history, and his Presidency is directly responsible for that. We are easily the most hated country, and he the most hated President in the world because of his foreign policy. I don't know about you, but I have travelled to over 18 countries in the last 20 months. I have been spit on, cussed out, not served at deli's, chased out of various places, and had quite a few doors slammed in my face because I am American. Before this Presidency this NEVER happened to me. In those 20 months I have not heard one good thing about this President from anyone in these foreign countries including England, Italy Australia, or Spain. His tax cuts that he so proudly speaks of, I am sure the rich love him for it, but $300 he gave to middle class Americans was quickly eaten up by high gas prices, and increased health insurance costs. Some tax break huh. Those tax cut's have done a bit to increase the national debt, and have not done very much to get unemployed Americans back to work. States that had a dearth of manufacturing jobs, ask them how they benefitted from his tax cut to the wealthy.

Anyway, you get the picture. JOEBIALEK's post in spin. Nothing more.

JSE

Its either spin, or Bush supporters denial. Whichever, the results speak for themselves. Am I a Kerry supporter, not hardly. But IMO he is the lesser of two evils. To say that he(Bush) has kept us safe, and there have been no further attacks on this country is naive. These terrorist are smart enough not to try the same thing twice no matter who is President. It is easier to hit other countries that support us, and erode that support away(Spain, Philippines)

[JeffKnob]

I find it interesting that Bush supporters seem to believe everything that Bush says without checking other sources for the facts. Bush is now saying that Kerry will prematurely pull out our troops from Iraq. Kerry has NEVER said that. He wants to follow a process of gaining the peace in Iraq, getting them setup with their own government, and then getting our troops home. I have no idea where Bush is getting this from. I don't see how Bush supporters can think it was right for us to go into Iraq like we did. Why couldn't we just let the political methods work their coarse like Bush said he was going to do? Why are Republicans so keen on war?

I am also very upset about the horrible spending practices of this administration. Bush says that he gave tax cuts to put more money in peoples pockets. That is great but then Bush needed to lower the amount he spends not spend more. If a persons income goes down due to a change in jobs or a demotion, does it make sense to spend more money? People say that Kerry is going to raise our taxes. I don't think he will. I am not totally apposed to it happening, afterall the money has to come from somewhere to payback the BS that Bush did. What we need to do is make the rich people pay their fair share? They make too much damn money for the actual work they do anyway. When you make that much money there are more things you are invested in which makes it easier for you to find tax loopholes. Most rich people hardly pay taxes. That isn't fair. We also need to audit where our tax money is going. Remove all of the BS that has been added to our budget. There is so much stupid spending being added to our budget by the congress adding stuff onto existing important bills. The bill gets passed because the main purpose is important. Kerry will clean this up.

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. We saw in the first debate how much of a retard he is.

[JSE]

T,

You have some good points but I simply was responding to your statement that the talking points that JOEBIALEK posted are all true when is fact they are not. They are spin and nothing else. I'm not getting in a tit for tat with you over this because neither one of us can win. Why, because is comes down to our opinions.

I also called JOEBIALEK on the statement he made.

" After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes."

I guess he has manage to correctly predict the election's outcome and established the "truth" for all americans in regard to G.W. based on his research and analysis. What research and analysis? Let's see it. What a crock of dung. I am sure polsters, networks, and the candidates would like to see how he came to this conclusion. It might save us the hassle of an election. I guess in the end, it's just his opinon.

Have a good one!

JSE

[piece-it pete]

I received an email the other day entitled "He's done more damage than we thought" (author unknown) which is a list of failures attributed to President George W. Bush. After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes. I will summarize this list and comment where appropriate.

A. Foreign Policy

1. "Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community." While it is true that Congress authorized the President to invade Iraq, the fact that U.S. intelligence was so conflicting brings into question the judgment of Bush. I too was wrong in pushing for the removal of Hussein rather than staying focused on Bin Laden and the other terrorist organizations. Further, it is doubtful that Hussein could have developed WMD under the watchful eye of U.N.weapons inspectors and regular sorties flown by U.S. fighters throughout the no-fly zones (not to mention satellite surveillance). Kerry will need to initiate reconciliation through an international summit of European and Middle Eastern nations to begin the process of cleaning up this mess in Iraq (and worldwide). After the summit, the world will witness the slow withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and the quick advancement of U.N. troops into Iraq.

I believe every occupation of a foreign county by the US was preceded by an order to attack.

UN, huh. Will someone point out ONE instance of a UN success militarily?

Why would we agree to be subect to a body made up of largely Dictatorial appointees? THAT isn't hypocritical?

Yes, Congress was given the SAME intellegence used by the Pres and came to the SAME conclusion. This is a dead horse, as the Dem vice chair of the 9-11 committee is in agreement with this assessment. It is pure politics by the Dems.

I seem to remember that Hussein tossed the inspectors out. While they were there, and when they were "allowed" back in, they were given the runaround EVERY DAY. Yeah, we should bank on this.

The WMD report on Iraq made it clear that all Hussein had to do was bide his time and had every intention of rebuilding his capability if possible. And with oil money, he always has the means.

Elect Kerry, and he will magicly get France and Germany to commit to Iraq, the sun will shine, and the world will love us. Russia has ALWAYS been with us behind the scenes, and since the school bombings up front.

Speaking of the school bombings, consider that Kerry will "return things to normal" terrorist-wise, but if these folks will go after their kinda "supporters" (they killed French citizens as well) how is he going to do this?

Judging by his long well documented record he will accomplish this by cutting the militaries' budget repeatedly and documenting abuses, while boosting our soldiers' morale by awarding medals that he does not believe in.

There can be no "schedule" to pull out troops in Iraq without disaster. It took seven years to put Japan back together, and we still have troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, and elsewhere.

Which BTW has not looted, raped, and pillaged those countries, but rather supported our successful efforts to install democratically elected gov'ts.

2. "Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found." In doing so, he has compromised the war on terrorism by directing 200 billion dollars for an overt combat operation as opposed to a covert operation. The United States has lost over 1,000 soldiers and thousands more are severely maimed prompting some to ask: hey hey GWB, how many kids will it be? The wiser choice would have been to invest 50 billion dollars in covert operations and 50 billion in homeland security. Besides, using conventional troops to fight terrorists is similar to the British army using regulars to fight French guerrillas during the Revolutionary War. Consequently, volunteerism for U.S. military service has sharply declined for all branches prompting rumors of a draft. Kerry will need to redirect resources to enhance homeland security while getting many more nations to share in troop and money commitments overseas especially in Iraq. He will also need to push Saudi Arabia and China to administer sanctions against Iran and North Korea to prevent further nuclear proliferation. Most importantly, however, he will need to fight terrorists overseas through covert operations.

Those "rumors" of a draft came directly from the Dems. Recruitment in all branches of the military has met targets.

As noted above, Congress agreed with the Presidents' action, until they didn't. Sounds like the Kerry we know and love.

Most leaders, US and foreign, libs and cons knew something had to be done with Saddam. In earlier wars, the isolationists were called "know-nothings". These were usually Republicans. My, how times change!

The overriding problem with Saddam is simply this: he showed the Arab world that the US (and the UN, and the rest of the civilized world) was a sniveling coward of a society that was weak and scared, no backbone, a bunch of wimps.

This goes to the heart of the war on terror, that we are fighting a CULTURE of hate, not one individual. Saddam was playing to that culture, on the world stage, and doing it well.

The global approach is the ONLY one that will be successful in the long run. Want things back to "normal"? Better get used to our boys taking some casualties for a while.

Unless Kerry gets in. Then, he will wave his wonderful wand and all will be ok. He'll give Iraq to the terrorists (the result of a pullout, no matter what the rosy scenario), with a great supply of oil money and who knows what else, France and Germany veto power over our self defense, and all the people in the world, terrorists or otherwise, will throw down their weapons and cheer for the wonderful US of A.

It goes without saying we won't have to worry about any more attacks then.

Saudi Arabia and China. These statements always crack me up, because they are the same thing as saying nothing. Yes, we will make China and the Sauds do our will (or France, or Germany, or the UN). Jeez.

B. Domestic Policy

1. "Bush spent the U.S. surplus and shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history." Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy along with irresponsible subsidizing of the war in Iraq has taken the U.S. budget from dark black to bright red all in the span of four years. Another four years of this squandering will bankrupt the United States. The remaining 100 billion dollars (from above) could have been invested in domestic programs like health care, education and the infrastructure. Kerry will need to revoke the tax cuts for the rich and reduce the United State's financial/military commitment in Iraq. These two changes (along with others) should result in a balanced budget in four years with the possibility of a return to a budget surplus in eight years.

More true unbiased commentary?

It is well known that the economy was going down when GWB came to power. That "surplus"? Wasn't that the result of record tax income and a GOP house? Nope, it was Clinton.

Plus, there is the elephant in the room, the fact that the "surplus" was bogus, sheer fiction. In the last debate Kerry mentioned he "fixed" Social Security with the massive tax increase that came through our SS withholding, to be saved until the boomers hit 65.

If I was Bush I'd have said, "But what did you do with it? You spent it, didn't you?" Because that's EXACTLY what Kerry (and others) did. There was NEVER a surplus.

And if there was, why spend it?

Tax cuts WORK. Nobel prize-winning economist Edward Prescott recently called them too small: ""Tax rates were not cut enough" . I am for fairness, I don't mind the wealthy getting the same cut as me. "Tax the rich" has a communistic sound to my ears.

BTW, the class list for America: Poor. Lower middle. Mid middle. High middle. Somewhat rich. Very rich. Democrat rich.

Kerry, the liberal Democrat, to the LEFT of both Hillary and Teddy!, is going to balance the budget? lol.

People have VERY short memories, and his proposed massive gov't programs total A LOT.

2. "Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down. His first two years in office resulted in 2 million Americans losing their jobs AND he cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US History." His presidency has been the most "in-your-face" support of the wealthy whether it be tax cuts, the lack of an energy and environmental policy, failure to crack down hard on corporate corruption etc. Kerry will need to bring back former Clinton advisor Robert Ruben to turn the economy around just as was done after the failed administration of Bush Sr. Kerry will need to fast-track the operationalizing of alternative energy sources in order to reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil specifically and world oil in general. As a former prosecutor, he will need to push for long-term prison sentences for those committing white-collar crimes and reduce the difficulty of prosecuting the likes of Ken Ley.

Ha! He's done more, put more abusers behind bars, than Clinton (the man in charge while this whole stinkin' corporate mess was cooking) did in 8 years!

"operationalizing of alternative energy sources" - right. Not to say it's not important to work on these things, but real world use is nowhere in the forseeable future. We need oil, like it or not. You think $2.00/gallon is high?

Conclusion

The failures by George W. Bush, the viable alternative of John Kerry, the massive number of newly registered voters, the amount of attention being given by the American people on this election and the mass media trying to spin this race as being close are all clear signs of a Kerry landslide. On the November 2, 2004 the people will speak loud and clear.

I believe this election is too close to call. The latest Washington Post poll (10-19, 3% margin of error) shows Bush holding his consistent lead, right now at 50% to 47%.

Failures of Bush. That sounds like a spin. Do I think Bush is perfect, that he's the be-all and end-all? Hardly. But he's a darnsite closer to the middle than Kerry, and does not skirt around tough calls dealing with the terrorists. Who do you think Osamas' pulling for?

Pete

[FLZapped]

A. Foreign Policy

1. "Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations

Gee, what about Nicaragua and Granada? Furthermore, you need to read the allt he resolutions that Sadam broke. Every single one of them said that any means available should be used to get him to comply. Furthermore, Annan dreamed up this illegal war crap to try and deflect the big hammer coming down on him regarding the oil for food scandel that he is in up to his neck.

2. "Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found." .

You may not be old enough to remeber that we lost up to 1000 per week in Vietnam. While WMDs were not found, all intelligence pointed to them, we now know why. I don't know why everyone gets stuck there. Saddam was offering 25 grand to every family of sucide bombers in Israel. Notice how these have since tapered? Notice the actions of Libyia? Notice the actions of Pakistan? Saddam had every intention of trying to get back to research and development of WMDs, part of Bushes speech about this indicated that he was a "gathering threat" - we now know this to be true. He was scamming the oil for food program and making millions as well as bribing whomever he thought could get him influence on the UN security coucil to get the sanctions against him eased, or removed. Racketeering 101.

1. "Bush spent the U.S. surplus and shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history." Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy along with irresponsible subsidizing of the war in Iraq has taken the U.S. budget from dark black to bright red all in the span of four years. Another four years of this squandering will bankrupt the United States. The remaining 100 billion dollars (from above) could have been invested in domestic programs like health care, education and the infrastructure. Kerry will need to revoke the tax cuts for the rich and reduce the United State's financial/military commitment in Iraq. These two changes (along with others) should result in a balanced budget in four years with the possibility of a return to a budget surplus in eight years.

I agree he has run up the deficit. So did Regan and it resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union. We survived that against all the doomesayers. We will survive this. Bush warned that it could be a possibility in one of his speeches, although I no longer remember whch one. Oh, one other thing, that surplus was PROJECTED.

While it is true that some wealthy people beinifited greatly by the tax break, the majority of those in that category are small businiess owners who pay taxes on their corporation as though it was personal income. Considering the hit our economy took after 9-11 and the fact it was already slowing down, the turn around is nothing less than amazing. Most economist will tell you that this was a suprizingly shallow and short lived recession.

2. "Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

This is a lie, the economy already was in decline when he took office.

Conclusion

You're looking for an excuse to support that communist sympathizing socialist.

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

I received an email the other day entitled "He's done more damage than we thought"

And like Zoe Miller said of Kerry, you can be in the Senate, be wrong and not do much damage, but in the white house.....

Why aren't you having a fit over the fact that Kerry has not been in attendance ONE DAY since he started campaigning two years ago, yet he continues to draw his senatorial salary and partake in all its benifits.....if he was so damned concerned about the economy, he'd return his salary.

Why hasn't he signed that form 180 to release ALL his military records? Something to hide?

Why did he vote against the first gulf war and vote for this one? We had a somewhat bigger aliance then and what he would consider proper backing from the UN.(you know, "the test.")

Why did he vote against funding our troops this time? he complained that some of our the families of troops were buying stuff off the internet. If he would have had his way ALL OF THEM WOULD HAVE!

Why did he go to France and meet with the North Vietnamese(twice) when he was STILL a commissioned officer of the US Navy, which is a direct violation of Military Code.

Why, if he threw his medals over the wall of the pentagon, are they still hanging in his sentarorial office?

Why does he say he will build real aliances, yet says the current aliance of some 30 nations is the bribed and coerced? You really think that is a good strategy? Oh, I know, he means France, Germany, Russia, and China, who were all profiting and illegally dealing with Saddam under the oil for food program and circumventing the sanctions against him.

He says our troops are stretched too0 thin and that he would add two divisions to the army. Where is HE going to get them and how is he going to pay for it? A draft along with his democratic buddy Charlie Rangel who was the sponsor of the legislation that recently went down in flames??

He supports the kyoto treaty. Are you aware that to sign it would be to sign away our national soveriegnty? Read it sometime.

-Bruce
(Kerry is so scary)

[piece-it pete]

Why, if he threw his medals over the wall of the pentagon, are they still hanging in his sentarorial office?

Bruce, it may interest you to know that, when he threw his medals to the roar of hippie approval, he actually threw his RIBBONS - he left his medals at home.

What a guy.

Pete

[FLZapped]

Bruce, it may interest you to know that, when he threw his medals to the roar of hippie approval, he actually threw his RIBBONS - he left his medals at home.

What a guy.

Pete

I think he has also admitted to throwing other peoples medals.....

Yeah, what a guy.

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

B. Domestic Policy

From: http://kerry-04.org/about/issues.php

In December 2002, however, Kerry called for the end of "double taxation" on dividends, perceiving the need to promote investment and more accurate corporate valuation. A mere five weeks later, Kerry voted against President Bush's plan to eliminate double taxation, which was nonetheless passed by Congress and signed into law. Now, Candidate Kerry plans to restore the system of double taxation on corporate dividends if elected.

All too telling, Kerry also opposes the elimination of the infamous death tax. Kerry's latest vote against the Bush tax cuts marked at least his tenth vote against tax relief over the course of his Senate career. In true form, Kerry voted in favor the largest tax increase in the history of the United States under Bill Clinton.

Not even a consistent demand-sider, Kerry has voted against balanced budget amendments no less than five times, and logged three key votes against overall reductions in federal government spending. Nevertheless, in his campaign platform, Kerry says, "Bush's irresponsible economic policies have borrowed from future generations. I will cut the deficit in half in my first term, while investing in economic growth and American workers." In other words, John Kerry is prepared to cut deficits by increasing taxes, not by reducing spending.

Concerning Kerry's spending habits of taxpayer money, the fiscally conservative group Citizens Against Government Waste, John Kerry scores a dismal lifetime rating of 26%.

Finally, a Kerry position isn't a Kerry position without a flip-flop. In September 2001, Kerry said, "The first priority is the economy of our nation. And when you have a downturn in the economy, the last thing you do is raise taxes or cut spending. We shouldn't do either. We need to maintain a course that hopefully will stimulate the economy.... No, we should not raise taxes, but we have to put everything on the table to take a look at why we have this structural problem today. ...you don't want to raise taxes."

Now, however, Kerry says in his election platform, "I will roll back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to invest in education and healthcare." In other words, Kerry advocates the redistribution of income to achieve social goals (a.k.a. Socialism), rather than allowing citizens the maximal use of their wealth to create more wealth, to the betterment of all.

Social Security & Healthcare

When it comes to the costliest, most economically dangerous entitlements in our country -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- John Kerry opposes desperately needed reforms, such as partial privatization, that would take America off this precipitous and unsustainable path. In his platform, Kerry offers the basis of a plan to offer near-universal health coverage to American, saying, "My plan expands health care coverage to 96 percent of Americans and 99 percent of all children."

What John Kerry is really saying, though, is that he doesn't believe in the free market, and would see the United States spiral into the same socialized healthcare abyss that now consumes Canada and many European nations. (How does a 50% tax rate strike you? -Bruce)

Also, for better or for worse, Kerry is no fan of Al Gore's Social Security "Lock Box," if his congressional record is any indication, voting at least five times to raid the fund.

In his platform, however, Kerry revisits the lock box theme, vowing to "take Social Security off the table when balancing the budget." At the same time, Kerry opposes even partial privatization of Social Security, on the grounds privatization would "cost" $1 trillion, causing deficits to spiral. By "cost" of course, Senator Kerry means loss of government revenue. But why would this matter, you might ask, if Kerry, in "lock box" fashion, vows to take Social Security "off the table" when balancing the budget? Good question.

[FLZapped]

Conclusion

John Kerry, a man of the people:

http://kerry-04.org/about/homes.php

[JSE]

Joe? Where are you man. I defended you in your last post on 9/23 when you said,

" Accordingly, I hereby commit to returning no sooner or later than 24 hours after my post to answer counter arguments. "

I took that to mean you would defend yourself. So far your just lobbing political rhetoric. Are you able to respond? Do you want to respond? Or, do you just like making statements and don't really have the knowledge to back them up?

Looks like you have about 30 more minutes.

Just wondering?

JSE

[FLZapped]

A. Foreign Policy

The United States has lost over 1,000 soldiers

The ORIGINAL cover of John Kerry's book THE NEW SOLDIER. John Kerry's friends, the so called Vietnam Veterans Against the War, were mocking the scene on Iwo Gima photographed during the Second World War. 6,825 American boys died to plant the flag on Iwo Jima. (Paraphrased from: http://kerry-04.org/new_soldier.php)

See that number, one battle, that's the total for just one battle in WWII. What has happened in Iraq to date pales in comparison to the sacrifices we've had to make in the past. Here, John Kerry has mocked them and denegrated the sacrifice asked of them to make to secure the freedom of the world against the tyrants in Germany and Japan!

And you REALLY think this guy will defend this country? If you do, I have a miracle interconnect to sell you.

-Bruce

[dean_martin]

The ORIGINAL cover of John Kerry's book THE NEW SOLDIER. John Kerry's friends, the so called Vietnam Veterans Against the War, were mocking the scene on Iwo Gima photographed during the Second World War. 6,825 American boys died to plant the flag on Iwo Jima. (Paraphrased from: http://kerry-04.org/new_soldier.php)

See that number, one battle, that's the total for just one battle in WWII. What has happened in Iraq to date pales in comparison to the sacrifices we've had to make in the past. Here, John Kerry has mocked them and denegrated the sacrifice asked of them to make to secure the freedom of the world against the tyrants in Germany and Japan!

And you REALLY think this guy will defend this country? If you do, I have a miracle interconnect to sell you.

-Bruce

So, you've bought in totally to this propaganda of half truths spewed forth from the mouths of people who weren't there and snippets of testimony and lines from books taken out of context. What is a young man to do? He goes off to war with no real goal or objective yet he kills and is shot at just like those who fought with an objective. He's the one who was cheated, not those who went before him and fought the good fights for legitimate causes.

Geez, we've lost about a thousand in Iraq SINCE Bush declared victory/success in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier. In a day and age of precision strike weaponry, in a war where our oppenents have no air force and no real ground equipment to speak of, believe it or not, some of us are surprised that we are still losing lives in a war that we were told we won a long time ago. This "shut up and salute attitude" is the most anti-American sentiment I've witnessed in my young life. Where's Piece-it-Pete with his quotes? There's one about "patriotism" that I think, unfortunately, fits about half the country.

[piece-it pete]

He's the one who was cheated, not those who went before him and fought the good fights for legitimate causes.

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.

Geez, we've lost about a thousand in Iraq SINCE Bush declared victory/success in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier. In a day and age of precision strike weaponry, in a war where our oppenents have no air force and no real ground equipment to speak of, believe it or not, some of us are surprised that we are still losing lives in a war that we were told we won a long time ago. This "shut up and salute attitude" is the most anti-American sentiment I've witnessed in my young life. Where's Piece-it-Pete with his quotes?

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.

Quote?

When, in spite of all efforts to avoid it, a republic must go to war, the focus of the nation is temporarily changed. The President, as Commander-In-Chief, assumes the extraordinary powers necessary to conduct the all-out effort. Citizens and legislators must then put aside differences and unite against the common enemy. Undesirable conduct may be forced on the republic in dealing with an unscrupulous enemy.

Jefferson
_______

Presenting an united front to the enemy. What a concept.

That said, I have always believed that, if we are truly free we will, no, we MUST discuss the things that matter to us collectively, and foreign deployment of troops surely rank high:

Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let me label you as they may.

Mark Twain
___________

Pete

[dean_martin]

[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.

[piece-it pete]

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 are neccessarily un-American or anti-soldier by definition. I just believe you are wrong.

Pete

[jeskibuff]

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!

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?

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.

...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.

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".

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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:

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 . . . .

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.

[JSE]

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. 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. Oh that's right, Kerry's a socialists. I forgot.

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

[dean_martin]

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.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!!!)

[Woochifer]

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.