According to AP, John Kerry was asked if he owned an SUV. He said he didn't. Turns out his wife drives a Chevy Suburban. "The family has it. I don't have it,'' he said.

Meanwhile, Charles Krauthammer writes about Kerry's bizarre Meet the Press comments on Iraq. Kerry said: "If I'm president, I will not only personally go to the U.N., I will go to other capitals. Within weeks of being inaugurated, I will return to the U.N. and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the world." A man who says such things will never be President.

John Kerry has consistantly proven he is a typical politician and a potentially disasterous leader. He has on several occations and topics controdicted himself and shown he has no real backbone. For example he is an apparent practicing Catholic that supports gay unions and pro choice, claiming seperation between church and state. He is simply going after avaliable markets or votes. He will sell out his personal convictions for a single vote. How can a man that is not willing to defend his most sacred beliefs be entrusted to defend our country.

And please do not give me the Vietnam B.S. He was there for 4 months as a glory seeker and after returning home spit in his countries face by refusing the honors which he had recieved supposedly trying to defend her. John Kerry is concerned about John Kerry. He comes across as a prideful, arrogant, directionless man with no personal integrity or original conviction on anything.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

who cares if his wife drives one HE doesnt thats like me asking you did you have drugs or did your wife??? like bush hasnt already lied "we are attcking because they have weapons of mass destructions and i want their oil OH shit i mean i want there AH CRAP"

Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations

April 23, 1971

"I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. The term Winter Soldier is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriots and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out....

In our opinion and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.

We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American.

We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how monies from American taxes were used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs and search and destroy missions, as well as by Viet Cong terrorism - and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.

We watched the United States falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings." We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater. We watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the hill for reoccupation by the North Vietnamese. We watched pride allow the most unimportant battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point, and so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 81s and Fire Base 6s, and so many others.

Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese.

Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?....We are here in Washington to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country - the question of racism which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions such as the use of weapons; the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything.

An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation of Alcatraz put it to me very succinctly. He told me how as a boy on an Indian reservation he had watched television and he used to cheer the cowboys when they came in and shot the Indians, and then suddenly one day he stopped in Vietnam and he said, "my God, I am doing to these people the very same thing that was done to my people," and he stopped. And that is what we are trying to say, that we think this thing has to end.

We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others? Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned? These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country....

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission - to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more. And more. And so when thirty years from now our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning. "

--John Kerry

Please tell me that this RX-8 forum isn't turning into a political debate. They're all politicians and they're all liars. Haven't we learned anything yet?

Originally posted by shoptb
Please tell me that this RX-8 forum isn't turning into a political debate. They're all politicians and they're all liars. Haven't we learned anything yet?

this is a lounge we talk about things that affect our everyday lives if you dont like it than dont read it thanks for ruining the thread a hole!

well to be a democratic you have to hate war for all the umm hippies and the OTHER TYPE of people to vote for you ... so thats why he wrote it .. but think of it this way what they did was wrong in vietnam but it was everyday thing for the americans to not know who there enemies were kids would shoot at them etc... it just shows what a nam soildier went through .... while its kerry when he was a kid dont make me pull the archives of bush running away from the military!:D

Take organized labor.

Kerry has always had a bad relationship with the unions in Massachusetts. But lucky for him, most of these voters had nowhere else to turn. Anti-union zealots Jim Rappaport (1990), Bill Weld (1996) and Michael Cloud (2002), were Kerry's challengers. However, instead of making some inroads with the union folks, Kerry kicked the shins of the working class time and time again, by voting for NAFTA, GATT and the WTO, and PMFN trade status for China.

Kerry has taken advantage of the fact that many voters had nowhere else to go in Massachusetts. Instead of standing up for workers, Kerry helped pass bad corporate and workers' legislation. His reaction to working folks has been a blasé toss of the hand, while reciting nonsensical globalist gobbledygook: If Americans can't compete with 10 cent labor in China, too bad. At an event in Manchester, N.H. back in August 2003, Kerry said precisely that to a handful of unionized Verizon workers complaining about outsourcing. They were all pretty shocked but those who have watched Kerry weren’t.

All across middle-America, working families are struggling to put food on the table because the factory jobs are gone. People have lost millions of good manufacturing jobs and now have to work two or three service slave jobs at a fraction of the wages they once earned. Kerry helped these people lose their economic advantages as Americans. He has been part of the problem, not the solution.

In fact, on a myriad of issues Kerry has been part of the problem in Washington, D.C. and so closely resembles President George W. Bush it is a wonder what the Democrats of 2004 are thinking.

Kerry voted for Bush’s war resolution but now attacks it. Kerry fell for what looks like a lie that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the definite falsehood that Saddam Hussein - contained between the 33rd and 36th parallel - was an imminent threat to the United States. Kerry assisted in President Bush's - and President Bill Clinton's - assault on the Constitution by voting for the PATRIOT Act and voting for the anti-terrorism bill in 1996. Kerry also voted for Bush's unfunded federal education mandate "No Child Left Behind," which he also now attacks. Kerry has supported wasteful government programs like foreign aid, hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare every year, IMF/World Bank’s enslavement of the Third World, etc. This morning, the Associated Press is reporting that Kerry worked to protect a $150 million loophole for a major insurance company working on The Big Dig - a $15 billion dollar construction boondoggle in Boston - which has been rife with corruption and political scandal, coming in 500 percent over budget.

For almost two decades, Kerry hasn’t been fighting the special interests he has been enabling the special interests.

And as stated before, Kerry has voted for every free trade deal that has come down the pike and despite being prodded and questioned by the voters back home, he refuses to come out against CAFTA, the extensive of NAFTA to other nations of Latin America. Kerry’s “fighting for us”? Far from it.

we just LOVE a president who puts the education FIRST!

President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, enacted last July, does nothing but leave many children behind. The act, which was heralded as a blessing to failing education systems around the country, hasn't lived up to its hype.

The No Child Left Behind Act is intended to bring all federally funded school students up to their grade level by 2014 in reading and math. It requires that schools annually test 95 percent of their students in their proficiency in math and reading skills to make sure they are on track with their grade schools. All this sounds like a good idea, until the law is looked at with more scrutiny.

Democrats have criticized the law for emphasizing high goals but providing little resources to meet these goals. Sen. Edward Kennedy has argued that President Bush has stiffed the act by nearly $6 billion. Bush's plan would therefore provide enough money to test children in public schools, but not enough to prepare them to pass the tests. Essentially, the Bush administration is relying on scare tactics to get test scores up.

With many states facing enormous budget shortfalls--some approach $68 billion--Bush is expecting the states to front the money to get schools up to federal standards. This is impossible.

As all U students know, education is often the first area to take a hit when the state Legislature is facing a tighter budget. Even though Utah consistently ranks last on spending per student, legislators argue that Utah schools still rank within the top half of test scores. The top half may not be good enough under the No Child Left Behind Act. And if the federal government doesn't give money to states to help prepare kids in public schools to pass standardized tests, many schools could be shut down.

Another problem with the act is that it forces all public-school students to be held to the same standards. Ninety-five percent of students in public schools must be tested annually until the year 2014, and then tested every other year after that deadline. This includes students who are mentally handicapped, speak English as a second language, are in juvenile correctional facilities or have been taught in perpetually under-funded inner city schools. The Bush administration is holding students who are mentally handicapped to the same standards that they are holding Advanced Placement students.

When he first came to the senate, Kerry was a champion of campaign finance reform, refusing political action committee [PAC] money and only accepting $250 donations. Then he changed his mind and started taking big money - even forming his own presidential slush fund PAC. Kerry paints himself as a champion of the environment but what has he actually done for the environment? Just voting against drilling in ANWR isn't enough.

For the most part, Kerry has had a safe seat in the Senate. Politicians who have safe seats are the ones who are supposed to be the visionaries. They can afford to take chances as big thinkers and float the new ideas. Despite the opportunity to forward meaningful legislation and really affect people's lives in a positive way, Kerry hasn't done the job.

As he ramped up his road to the White House, Kerry could have started building his legislative resume, laying the foundation for the ideas to come. But instead, he coasted or even hurt his own cause, by ignoring political opportunities to shine in the gentlemen's club. In fact, his actions on legislation may come back to haunt him on a massive scale in the final stages of this campaign.

Originally posted by HiTMaNN
thanks for ruining the thread a hole!

I'm really glad you're here HiTMaNN. Sometimes you really make my day :D

I get a really bad feeling when I think of Kerry being president, and that's good enough for me. My gut has never failed me (except maybe that one time with a particular bottle of tequila :p ).

And this is another reason why he won't win!

Alexandra Kerry at the Cannes film festival! (http://wizbangblog.com/archives/002509.php)

At least Kerry is not a dumbass, born again christian, fascist, buddy-buddy, former coke head, former drunk, coward, shoot-first-think-never, redneck, murderer, C student, tool of the wealthy, like bush is/was. Ill take a regular garden variety liar over bush anyday.

Originally posted by Rotary Nut
And this is another reason why he won't win!

Alexandra Kerry at the Cannes film festival! (http://wizbangblog.com/archives/002509.php)

Yikes. She's got my vote. Or rather, he does.

Kerry vowed "we can no longer tolerate a dependence on foreign oil" but criticizes the Bush administration for proposing drilling in ANWR, which teamsters support for its creation of over 700,000 new jobs. Now Kerry advocates an energy policy to "aggressively develop oil and gas supplies" and "develop renewable fuels."

Will the real John Kerry please stand up.

The only reason Kerry could possibly lose at this point is if Nader sucks off too many votes in key states.

Sorry, other than that Bush's poll #'s are getting more dismal by the second. Yes they are both politicians, and yes they both suck ass, but I would rather vote for a garden gnome than see busshie boy run this country further into the ground.

Garden Gnome, hahaha, thats nice. I will have to use that.

I don't think John Kerry is a great man. However I don't see how you could ever say he would be a worse president than Bush has been. Instead of simply attacking Kerry, why can't people (republicans) look at what GW Bush has "accomplished" in the white house and ask themselves if he really deserves a second term. I don't see a point in sticking with a guy that has the worst record of any president in history, and has repeatedly lied to the American Public. Remember "Mission Accomplished"?

What Bush has accomplished...

2.2 million jobs lost
43 million americans without health insurance
Took a record surplus and turned it into a record defecit.

And to all the republicans that will blame that stuff on 9/11, F U. 9/11 is the greatest thing that could have happened for the Bush administration. It gave him a licence to do anything he wanted like say get us into a stupid war that should have ended a year ago but continues to drain resources that could be used MUCH better here at home while continuing to line the pockets of his rich buddies. Oh yeah where is Osama Bin Laden? We found him right, oh wait no we never actually did that either.

While I don't necessarily like John Kerry, I HATE Bush. To me he is the #1 terrorist in the world. If he is re-elected I am SERIOUSLY going to consider moving to Canada to be around some sane people.

Originally posted by Rotary Nut
And this is another reason why he won't win!

Alexandra Kerry at the Cannes film festival! (http://wizbangblog.com/archives/002509.php)

Looks like both candidates have daughters who push the envelope.

Originally posted by bernieunger
Looks like both candidates have daughters who push the envelope.

True. But Alexandra's an adult babe, bernie. If the pictures are anything to go by, anyway. That Jenna Bush is a little too "girls gone wild" for me. I have trouble imagining Alexandra saying stuff like "woudja hold my hair while I throw up."

Kerry is now raising more money than Bush.

I wouldn't discount him as a real competitor.

Just make sure you vote.

Originally posted by I, Claudius
True. But Alexandra's an adult babe, bernie. If the pictures are anything to go by, anyway. That Jenna Bush is a little too "girls gone wild" for me. I have trouble imagining Alexandra saying stuff like "woudja hold my hair while I throw up."

I bet the display of nips is a lot more subtle in normal light. The photo flash is the magic ingredient in that picture. I better look again to make sure.

I'm trying to imagine all the Ashcrofts in the world dealing with this. "Oh, I'm blind, I'm blind". The emails are flying - with attachments, of course.

Hitmann, have you not seen the children with bombs strapped on them that kill hundreds of people every year in the Middle East? It's not happening to our soldiers yet but it could as the terrorists get more desperate. And are you saying that because they saw young people killing soldiers every Vietnamese child was then guilty of the others crimes and deserved to get shot?

KC, you have forgotten who the worst Presidents were.
HINT: they both got impeached
And isn't it funny that you'll mention 2.2 million jobs lost but not the fact that that number was over 3 million a month ago. Oh yeah, start packing your bags now.

Originally posted by mpt_yellowRX8
Hitmann, have you not seen the children with bombs strapped on them that kill hundreds of people every year in the Middle East? It's not happening to our soldiers yet but it could as the terrorists get more desperate. And are you saying that because they saw young people killing soldiers every Vietnamese child was then guilty of the others crimes and deserved to get shot?

thats not what i said but how would you like if you were ina war and this cute little kid who is no mroe than 12 comes up to you.. you think he is just a little kid he shoots you and the last thing you see in your eyes is your own kid back home and now a kid about his age just as beautiful as your own son has taken your life FOR WHAT??? a government that doesnt even car?? for what a family he will never see again??? Just cause the parents of this kid put these things into his head like americans are bad they are killers they are this they are that ... i am not justifying the killing of the kids im just explaining the stand point a soldier in that time was go watch full metal jacket or platoon best nam movies and teaches you what kinda shit actully happened.. and yah im for kerry im admitting it hate bush and everything he stands for!

espically the soft wood lumber dispute

Kerry's daughter has a horse face just like him, but nice nips.

And the prospect of people like KC Prelude leaving the country is one more reason it will be even sweeter when Bush wins. But seeing as how Alec Baldwin is still here too.....I won't hold my breath.

Oh yeah, F U 2 :p

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Kerry's daughter has a horse face just like him, but nice nips.

And the prospect of people like KC Prelude leaving the country is one more reason it will be even sweeter when Bush wins. But seeing as how Alec Baldwin is still here too.....I won't hold my breath.

Oh yeah, F U 2 :p ]


hey you cant just shoot down his ideas just cuz he is a demo im in the middle so i guess i get the best of both wordls (NDP)

but hey i acknowldge his comments about bush and i acknowledge yours about kerry but hey no one is perfect dont make me pull your files from elementary skool! :D

I know it was bad in Vietnam, I never denied that, but you seem to think that it was more acceptable in that war that they shot first and asked questions later. I have spoken to many people who were in WWII and there are horrific stories from that war too, but that wouldn't have made it alright for them to commit war crimes while there. Just because you are facing a non-uniformed militia doesn't mean you can commit those kinds of acts and be allowed to get away with them. I also hate the fact that the soldiers were greeted with a slap in the face and thrown out on the streets when they got home. I have stated that feeling in other threads and have asked for people to greet our soldiers with respect and kindness when they get home, even if you do not support the war. I could still be misunderstanding you and I hope that I am, but there is not much of a diffrence between the Vietnam war and what we are facing now, you never know who is going to shoot at you.

its kill or get killed war crimes WHY DOnt they follow iT!! it send chills down my spine see that pic of a kid mowed down because i hope that is never my kid when you guys attack us!

but hey man im not justifying what they did was right im just saying it is really hard when you see your best friend get killed by some kid who was fed bad things when he was a kid.. sorta what the nazis did to there youngins it was nuts how much they hated ppl they didnt even know

Originally posted by KC_Prelude


While I don't necessarily like John Kerry, I HATE Bush. To me he is the #1 terrorist in the world. If he is re-elected I am SERIOUSLY going to consider moving to Canada to be around some sane people.

Promise? I got all excited when Alec Baldwin and Barbra Streisand said they'd leave the country if Bush was elected. I'm still waiting... America could use a few less people like them... and you.

How about we get Alec Baldwin, Barbara Streisand, and KC_Prelude together on there own little private island of what the hell were you thinking when you said that. You know we will never EVER let you live this down now.

I say good riddens to bad rubbage.

yah i call adding trhe canadian idiots like celine dion and brian adam there too!

yah i call adding trhe canadian idiots like celine dion and brian adam there too!

Comments of former POW, MIKE BENGE

I keep hearing Vietnam Veteran everytime this joker makes a speech. Below adds some perspective.

As Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, considers a bid for the White House, Americans should know a few things about him that he might prefer go unmentioned - and I don't mean his $75 haircuts.

When Mr. Kerry pontificated at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on Veterans Day, a group of veterans turned their backs on him and walked away. They remembered Mr. Kerry as the anti-war activist who testified before Congress during the war, accusing veterans of being war criminals. The dust jacket of Mr. Kerry's pro-Hanoi book, "The New Soldier," features a photograph of his ragged band of radicals mocking the U.S. Marine Corps Memorial, which depicts the flag-raising on Iwo Jima, with an upside-down American flag.

Retired Gen. George S. Patton III charged that Mr. Kerry's actions as an anti-war activist had "given aid and comfort to the enemy," as had the actions of Ramsey Clark and Jane Fonda. Also, Mr. Kerry lied when he threw what he claimed were his war medals over the White House fence; he later admitted they weren't his. Now they are displayed on his office wall.

Long after he changed sides in congressional hearings, Mr. Kerry lobbied for renewed trade relations with Hanoi. At the same time, his cousin C. Stewart Forbes, chief executive for Colliers International, assisted in brokering a $905 million deal to develop a deep-sea port at Vung Tau, Vietnam ??? an odd coincidence.

As noted in the Inside Politics column of Nov. 14 (Nation), historian Douglas Brinkley is writing Mr. Kerry's biography. Hopefully, he'll include the senator's latest ignominious feat: preventing the Vietnam Human Rights Act (HR2833) from coming to a vote in the Senate, claiming human rights would deteriorate as a result. His actions sent a clear signal to Hanoi that Congress cares little about the human rights for which so many Americans fought and died.

The State Department ranked Vietnam among the 10 regimes worldwide least tolerant of religious freedom. Recently, 354 churches of the Montagnards, a Christian ethnic minority, were forcibly disbanded, and by mid-October, more than 50 Christian pastors and elders had been arrested in Dak Lak province alone. On Oct. 29, the secret police executed three Montagnards by lethal injection simply for protesting religious repression. The communists are conducting a pogrom against the Montagnards, forcing Christians to drink a mixture of goat's blood and alcohol and renounce Christianity. Thousands have been killed or imprisoned or have just "disappeared." The Montagnards lost one-half of their adult male population fighting for the United States, and without them, there might be thousands more American names on that somber black granite wall at the Vietnam memorial.

As Mr. Kerry contemplates a run for the presidency, people must remember that he has fought harder for Hanoi as an anti-war activist and a senator than he did against the Vietnamese communists while serving in the Navy in Vietnam.

MICHAEL BENGE Foreign Service officer and former Vietnam POW (1968 to 1973)

Comments of former POW Joe Crecca

Seattle Post Intelligencger
February 8, 2004

Kerry doesn't deserve veterans' support

By Joe Crecca
Gust Columnist

The rigors and hardships of being a POW aside, I remember the so-called "peace movement" and peace marches and rallies that were taking place back home in the United States.

Our captors were more than willing, within their means, to provide us with any and all anti-U.S. and anti-Vietnam War propaganda. Without a choice in the matter, we listened to the "Voice of Vietnam" broadcasts by "Hanoi Hannah" and were shown newspaper and magazine photos and articles about those opposing the war back in the states.

One of the peace marchers' standard slogans was, "Bring our boys home now and alive." The warped thinking of such people was that by demonstrating against U.S. involvement in Vietnam, they'd be shortening the war and reducing the number of American casualties. These demonstrators would also try to make one believe that their efforts would bring POWs like me home sooner. They were utterly wrong on both counts, not to mention the detrimental effect their actions had on the morale of our troops and our POWs.

John F. Kerry was not just one of these demonstrators. He was leading them.

These demonstrations for peace had the exact opposite effect of what they purported to accomplish. Instead of shortening the war the "peace movement" served only to protract the conflict, resulting in a vastly greater number of Americans killed and wounded, greater economic burdens and longer periods of incarceration for Americans held captive in Vietnam. The war would have been over much sooner and with a much more favorable result if those in the "peace movement" would have rallied behind the commander in chief to accomplish our mission and then withdraw.

Many fewer names would be engraved into the black granite of the Vietnam Memorial if these people had supported our efforts instead of trying to derail them. After all, fighting against a political regime that up to that time had murdered more than a hundred million people couldn't have been all bad. But Kerry thought and acted differently. How many more names on the wall can he take credit for?

After the war ended, some of the war protesters hung on to their anti-war postures for a while. Some of them realized the errors of their ways almost immediately, but it took others 20 to 25 years.

Some, like Kerry, have not realized there was anything wrong with what he did. Instead, he hopes we will see him as a courageous Vietnam veteran. I do not. He hopes we will admire his bravery. I do not. I remember him more for his misdeeds upon his return from Vietnam.

However, in the present political arena, he evidently has succeeded in gaining the support of some well-meaning but misled Americans. Given his past record, it is just astonishing that he has garnered any support from our nation's veterans.

I hope people will reconsider their support for Kerry in light of his actions, which were so detrimental to our Vietnam combat soldiers, sailors and airmen, many of whom are not here today to tell you themselves.

Joe Crecca
Vietnam POW
22NOV66-18FEB73

Call sign: Boston strangler

The American Thinker
May 13th, 2004

John B. Dwyer is a military historian, and Vietnam veteran, who served in the Fourth Infantry Division

Thomas Wright was one of John F. Kerry's fellow Swift boat officers in Vietnam. Since Wright outranked Kerry, he was Kerry's sometime boat group Officer-in-Charge, so Wright had occasion to observe Kerry’s behavior and attitudes, and the circumstances surrounding his early departure from the war zone. The intervening years have not dimmed his memories.

When the Swift boats of Coastal Division 11 sailed into harm’s way from their Phu Quoc Island base of An Thoi, for missions along the rivers of Vietnam’s southwesternmost Kien Giang and An Xuyen provinces, they communicated by radio. When they did, boat captains adopted distinctive, often humorous call signs for identification purposes. Eldon Thompson was “Mary Poppins,” William Schachte was “Baccardi Charlie,” James T. Grace was “Twiggy,” and Tom Wright was “Dudley Do-Right.” When John Kerry radioed another Swift boat, he used the call sign, “Boston Strangler.”

Lieutenant Thomas W. Wright heard that call sign frequently. As OIC (Officer-in-Charge) of PCF-44, he operated with LT (j.g.) Kerry’s 94 Boat on a fairly regular basis. A 1966 graduate of the University of North Carolina’s NROTC program, Wright had served as communications officer aboard the destroyer USS Robert A. Owens before beginning Swift boat training in November 1967. He had already served for eight months with Qui Nhon’s Coastal Division 15 when the monsoon season forced its boats to be shifted to the more protected, and more challenging waters off An Thoi. He decided to extend his tour and follow his disciplined, veteran crew to the new base. As the relatively senior lieutenant there, he was the OTC, or Officer-in-Tactical Command for the majority of the 3-to-6-boat missions. On most of them he commanded 44 Boat.

The rivers and canals of Kien Giang and An Xuyen provinces were the targets of Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, Rear Adm. Elmo Zumwalt’s aggressive SEALORDS operations. Looking back after all these years, Tom Wright, now a retired Commander, recalls: “We planned missions locally to try to dominate the area and disrupt the enemy’s movements. We faced significant challenges every day, every night. We would respond to intelligence reports as appropriate. It took great imagination and determination to work effectively in the rivers, and we remained deployed until material damage and casualties reduced our effectiveness. We would then rotate back to An Thoi for repair and re-arming.”

For Tom Wright and most other Swift boat officers, there were two commandments: 1. Protect the crews. 2. Win. As for Tom Wright’s 44 Boat; “we won every engagement, start to finish. I got the crew home; a few nicks, but we made it.”

Working with call sign “Boston Strangler” became problematical. “I had a lot of trouble getting him to follow orders,” recalls Wright. “He had a different view of leadership and operations. Those of us with direct experience working with Kerry found him difficult and oriented towards his personal, rather than unit goals and objectives. I believed that overall responsibility rested squarely on the shoulders of the OIC or OTC in a free-fire zone. You had to be right (before opening fire). Kerry seemed to believe there were no rules in a free-fire zone and you were supposed to kill anyone. I didn’t see it that way.”

In Wright’s view, it was important that the enemy understood that Swift boats were a competent, effective force that could dominate his location. To do that, you also had to control the people and their actions; to have them accept Swift boat crews and their authority. You couldn’t achieve that by indiscriminate use of weapons in free fire zones.

It got to a point where Wright told his divisional commander he no longer wanted Kerry in his boat group, so he was re-assigned to another one. “I had an idea of his actions but didn’t have to be responsible for him.” Then Wright and like-minded boat officers took matters into their own hands. “When he got his third Purple Heart, three of us told him to leave. We knew how the system worked and we didn’t want him in Coastal Division 11. Kerry didn’t manipulate the system, we did.”

As for medals, Commander Wright holds strong views: “No one was recognized for completely overwhelming the enemy with skill, courage and bravery. No one wanted a Purple Heart because it meant we had made a mistake. We made sure our crews were recognized, but no one took pride in a Purple Heart. Everyone who served is equally important, regardless of rank or awards.

Veterans are marching against John Kerry in Washington this fall.

http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29703

yep, not the strongest candidate, but neither is his opponent.

Time will tell if the Democrats blame Nader or squeak out a win.

Its a shame that they can't accept it when they are defeated. The democrats always seam to need a scapegoat for their misfortunes.

I will post more as I find it.

GigJ : give us all a break,puleeze!!!

You post all these articles from people who don't think much of John Kerry and his service in Nam.
Your fellow Republicans , when faced with former Administration players like Richard Clarke, Paul O'neill, Tony Zinni et al say "Oh they are just disgruntled for... (Pick a reason).

John Kerry actually BLED for his country. All I knoew about YOUR guy is that he used DRAG to jump over hundreds of other applicants to get himself into a champagne Air National Guard unit in Texas, and have his teeth checked in Alabama.
Who knows why the people who didn't like Kerry have come forward now.
All I can figure is that your guy is not exactly lilly white.:)

oOoo Well if i dont vote for him he wont win, and he hasnt come to my house to give me money yet :D

How about not talk so much about the past.. but about the present. Who is the bigger evil? The person that lied to the American public over Weapons of Mass destruction, used his own personal hatred of someone, lead our troops to invade another country, and killed many innocent people along the way? OR The person who lied about his wife driving an SUV? Hmmmm...

Both are liars, both are whatevers as President... but the lesser of two Evil is Kerry. We already know one guy that dragged us into combat for his own agenda, we know that he has made gas prices increase, economy trickling downwards, more jobs are being loss during this time... shouldn't we give a new person the job now?

Clinton 3rd Term!

Originally posted by Outlaws eXtreme
How about not talk so much about the past.. but about the present. Who is the bigger evil? The person that lied to the American public over Weapons of Mass destruction, used his own personal hatred of someone, lead our troops to invade another country, and killed many innocent people along the way? OR The person who lied about his wife driving an SUV? Hmmmm...

Both are liars, both are whatevers as President... but the lesser of two Evil is Kerry. We already know one guy that dragged us into combat for his own agenda, we know that he has made gas prices increase, economy trickling downwards, more jobs are being loss during this time... shouldn't we give a new person the job now?

Clinton 3rd Term!

Ya know why they wanted to impeach Clinton??
Because the cigar tube he used to diddle Monica was from a CUBAN cigar.
Aiding and abetting the enemy LOL:D

This morning on CNN, I heard that Al Qaida supports Kerry.

That's an endorsement that you won't see on the Kerry website.

This morning on CNN, I heard that Al Qaida supports Kerry.
That is because they know if Kerry wins they will be much freeer to do what they please. All the more reason to vote for Bush.

economy trickling downwards, more jobs are being loss during this time The economy is improving everyday. We have had the biggest spike in the economy and jobs this past quarter than we have had in over 40 years. The economy, as it stand today, mimics the economy as it was during Clintons 6-7th year as president. Fact is Clinton left Bush with a mess. The economy was in a downward spiral because Clinton felt like stealing chairs out of the white house rather than running the country. Sooner or later, before the election, liberals will not be able to cry "ECONOMY!". Because if they do it will prove that the economy is improving becuase of Bush's economic plan. The democrats are not going to be able to rely on the economy to win this election. They have to focus on Iraq if they want to win.

Originally posted by SmileyFace


The economy is improving everyday.

That is why the guys who put their money where their mouth is (Stock market investors) have let the market move sideways for the past 6 months.

That's why the dow jones is at a low not seen since George Bush Sr.

Go look at your Business section of the newspaper... if you see, the major stocks are all at a decline. The ONLY stocks doing anything or maintaining their balance are Metal, and Aeronautics. Where did you get the fact that the "economy and jobs this past quarter than we have had in over 40 years" ? You do know something about the internet boom reaching an all-time high on wall-street... pushing the economy at an all-time high. You do know that under Bush, there is a decrease in jobs available because more and more college graduates are NOT qualified enough to get jobs. People are only looking for experienced, Masters degree or better workers. These are the jobs I'm reffering to... not the dinky McDonald's down the street. Even those jobs are hard to come by for a high school student these days.

I would rather vote for a President that wants to improve the welfare of it's own people... than to lie, and use an excuse that we are there to liberate a dictatorship. Why worry about other people's problems when we have our own right here? Though Kerry will indeed need to focus on some aspects of Iraq to win... simply because he has to say how he's going to pull back our troops, and clean up the mess that Bush got the American soldiers into.

Hate to tell ya this but we are sitting on the edge of a RECESSION driven by high energy prices.

Originally posted by SmileyFace
The economy is improving everyday. We have had the biggest spike in the economy and jobs this past quarter than we have had in over 40 years. The economy, as it stand today, mimics the economy as it was during Clintons 6-7th year as president.

What planet are you on? Bush has been putting pedal to the metal for three years now trying to goose this economy. Interest rates are incredibly low. Taxes have been cut turning our country's treasury into an economic Argentinian look-alike. And after all that, we get this pathetic spit of a spike that will get blown away when interests rates rise. We've been down so long anything looks like up now.

Do you have any concept at all how much damage we've done to the economy by relying on deficits and interest rates? We are in deep, deep do-do and Bush is AWOL again.

I think Bush was the right president to be in office when 9/11 happened. I was pissed off when he won the election, but on retrospect, Gore wouldn't have done anything to make the situation better. I think if it had been somebody like Gore there would still be the Taliban and probably more terroristic events might have occurred in the US by now. I think he would have chosen to instead tiptoe around the situation so as to hurt/offend the least amount of people and would have been more affected by the public opinion. Bush is more like an animal who reacts violently when harmed. That being said, now it's time for Bush to leave office, because he doesn't know what to do when it comes to using his intellect. All the cocaine destroyed the smart part. I think it's now time for somebody like Kerry to come into office. Now that Bush has planted the seeds of democracy right in the middle of the middle-east, it's time for a more intelligent person to finish the job. I'm not saying Kerry would make a great president, but I think at least he'll be able to make better what Bush can't.

Everyone knows voting for president is like voting for the lesser of 2 evils. You could vote for Nader, but you don't because deep down you know if he were elected, then hell would indeed freeze over. A person who actually reaches the pinnacle where the only next logical step is president didn't get there because they have such compassion as to make the world a better place. They got there because of the selfish desire for power. And power is like a drug and drugs corrupt the mind.

So you have to figure out who can actually make at least a little difference once they've achieved the ultimate power and I think that's Kerry. Bush is too dumb to do anything except consume the power of the U.S. by making war. But just like electricity, you have to replenish the power somehow and the way it's looking right now, that power will come from the lives of all your teenage sons and daughters. The draft will indeed become active in 2005 unless somebody with a little intelligence can fix what isn't getting fixed right now in Iraq. The Bush administration isn't fixing anything. It's only capable of starting things, not finishing them.

Let's bring in some people with a little more intelligence and maybe a little more humanity. I think that will be the Kerry administration. Democrats are afterall the party that tends to be more influenced by the rights of the world. Republicans listen more to the rights of the US.

Originally posted by RXGr8
I think Bush was the right president to be in office when 9/11 happened. I was pissed off when he won the election, but on retrospect, Gore wouldn't have done anything to make the situation better. I think if it had been somebody like Gore there would still be the Taliban and probably more terroristic events might have occurred in the US by now.


Hate to tell you... but the taliban is still in existance and they still control a majority of Afganistan.

Originally posted by RXGr8
I'm not saying Kerry would make a great president, but I think at least he'll be able to make better what Bush can't.
snip
Bush is too dumb......
snip
Let's bring in some people with a little more intelligence and maybe a little more humanity. I think that will be the Kerry administration.
snip


ROFL
So Kerry is a little more intelligent and humanistic?
LOL again.
That is rich. That moron can't mount an effective campaign despite having all the economic ammo. (remember "its the economy stupid"?) You'd think he would be kissing Clenis to get some help.:D :D :D :D :D

One sunny day in 2005 an old man approached the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush." The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer
president and no longer resides here." The old man said, "Okay" and walked away.


The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush." The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here." The man thanked him and, again, just walked away.


The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same U. S. Marine, saying "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."


The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer the president and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"


The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."


The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow."

I think that Bush will have another close one on his hands but can't figure out why people still refer to him as dumb. Kerry evidently doesn't have that much more brain power if he can't remember what he did with his metals from Vietnam and can't remember what lies he's told in the past so that he does not flip-flop. The majority of people would remember their lies before they would remember when they told the truth, it is a human instinct to cover your back.

Here are some articles about how Kerry deals with foreign relations and how incorrect he is:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37156

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/16/Politics/Kerrys.Disloyal.Nicaraguan.Journey-681125.shtml

He asked Ortega to stop his dealings with the Russians and to stop the fighting, he got a handshake and a picture of the big deal for peace that he had lead. The next day Ortega was in Russia buying weapons and getting ready to launch an offensive against the freedom fighters. I guess Kerry was misinformaed by someone and made a bad decision, but oh how some of you will defend him and say it wasn't his fault because he was dealing with a communist, things were different back then, or things of that nature. Guess what, Kerry made the same mistake as Bush and you won't accept it. Why should I believe that he has changed and is actually going to side with the correct people? He seems to side with whomever is in power and not shake things up. While sometimes it is better to not start a fight you have to know when to take the situation and get it under control, Kerry doesn't understand this.

Also, Kerry has proclaimed that he will send every able-bodied person after the terrorists in order to take them out, wouldn't he just love to have a draft come 2005, then his will would be done and he wouldn't have to take the heat when it failed, he could just blame the draft and claim that it was the Republican Congress that sent our future leaders overseas to die. I would rather see Colin Powell running for President, but some of you would find a way to bash him after you have stated earlier on this thread that he is the only one in the administration you respect.

The economy is growing faster than any time in history and shows few signs of slowing down, and jobs are coming back. The economy is growing and some of you complain about it while you complain about the deficit at the same time. Which America do you prefer? The America that is pulling through and regaining its strength, or the America that can't seem to stand up straight because it is in an economic slump and losing jobs. You can't have it both ways, but then again I can now see why some of you adore Kerry so much, you can't tell which way is up either. It sucks that we have lost jobs to offshore companies but it is the fault of the companies because they are after some easy money.

Has anyone ever heard of the Clear Skies Act? Or have you placed it on the back-burner and chosen yell at the administration for not doing enough to promote environmental friendliness?

http://www.epa.gov/air/clearskies/fact2003.html

The debates will be a telling sign of who is better for the country and will give everyione a chance to watch both candidates talk about the issues. I will make my final decision then and there and we will all see who is the lesser of two evils. I have stated my opinion here before and I personally can't wait for them to start. Have great day guys and gals, but think about me because I'll be sitting here at the computer working for about 6 hours, and God bless.

Originally posted by mpt_yellowRX8
I think that Bush will have another close one on his hands but can't figure out why people still refer to him as dumb. Kerry evidently doesn't have that much more brain power if he can't remember what he did with his metals from Vietnam

You do not know the difference between a medal and metal, yet you have determined Bush is not dumb. In the eyes of my cousin I am a genius. He is mentally retarded.

mpt_yellowRX8, how many positive things can you name that Kerry has done in his many years in public office? His record is fairly bare, the only thing he's really done right in his life was marry a rich woman.

Babylou, I refer to them as metals because to him that is all they are, small piecse of worthless brass, silver, and bronze. Why do you poke fun at your cousin by using him or her as the butt of your joke? It is great to see that you really care about your fellow man, especially family.

JasonHamilton, yeah, I wish I could be married to a multi- multi-millionaire. How lucky is he!

Originally posted by mpt_yellowRX8
Babylou, I refer to them as metals because to him that is all they are, small piecse of worthless brass, silver, and bronze. Why do you poke fun at your cousin by using him or her as the butt of your joke? It is great to see that you really care about your fellow man, especially family.

I was not poking fun at my cousin. Rather, I was insinuating that you were not intelligent and that is why your assessment of dubya's intelligence was worthless. However, it appears you were not able to deduce the insinuation. Perhaps another data point to reinforce my insinuation. Who is the butt here?

If you would like to make a poll to see who agrees with whom on the cousin issue I would be happy to. Use whatever terms you wish to describe me but don't think that you can get away with a statement like using a mentally retarded person as a joke without me calling you on it.

And if you would like to make points then go ahead. I have shown through links and data what I think of your candidate and you should try to do the same. If you are into using knowledge and smarts as a guideline I hope that you did not vote for Gore in 2000 as his test grades were lower than the Presidents, and we can back that up with facts. If the only thing you can say to describe someone is that they are stupid that shows a lack of intelligence on your part. Studies show that people with a small IQ usually use other people to make themselves feel smarter, examples being calling them names or calling them stupid. Since you have done this several times on this page alone I can only wonder what your daily life is like. If you are going to make statements on this forum please make some that hold water.

The democrats have always consistently defended the idiot. They still defend Clinton and some would say that having Hillary back in office for a 3rd term would be a good idea. It's funny how people bitch about Bush's service record in Vietnam. This impies that you have to have been a ground troop in the Army or Marines to be a viable candidate for president. Bush was in the National Guard. No he didn't go around the world and fight in the jungles. He was here defending his nation in case of attack. The national guard still is a branch of the armed forces and therefore he served. At least he didn't publicly cry out against his country and against his own troops like Kerry did. Clinton didn't even serve at all. He dodged the draft and ran to Canada. Why didn't the democrats complain then? Let me guess, he went over there to hold the Prime Minister's hand to console them because we made a bad mistake. That must be it. Clinton is an admitted liar yet Demorats like him. Bush never lied. He only acted upon the info given to him but somehow he is dishonest? Kerry changed his mind on topics more often than he changes his underwear. He isn't lying? I fail to see democrat logic. Apparently the only ammo they have in an argument is to attack someone for improper spelling on a single word since they can't do anything else properly. Arguing about one specific person's spelling is getting off topic and only sidestepping an issue. When you have no comeback, this is usually the only option.

I hear what you're saying. I can't wait for the reply with the big words strewn throughout, you know it's coming.

I also stated that Clinton ran off to Canada and then found a webpage devoted to telling the story. I then found no mention of Canada, but Moscow and London were visited quite a few times, especially when he could not get reclassified and needed a place to hang out and protest against the US. Not to get off of the topic or anything but if I find the site again I will link to it.

http://www.urbin.net/EWW/polyticks/bc-rotc.html

http://www.1stcavmedic.com/bill-clinton-draft.htm

Here is another interesting link so show why Kerry will loose in 2004.

http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/wmd.htm

Check out the rest of that site for other wonderful John Kerry facts.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rotarygod
It's funny how people bitch about Bush's service record in Vietnam.

Unlike Kerry, Bush has no service record in Vietnam. That's the point.

Bush was in the National Guard. No he didn't go around the world and fight in the jungles. He was here defending his nation in case of attack.

And the Vietcong never attacked Alabama, proving that his defense was effective. Kudos to the prez for a job well done!

Originally posted by bowman
This morning on CNN, I heard that Al Qaida supports Kerry.

That's an endorsement that you won't see on the Kerry website.

If they really supported Kerry because they thought the US would be easier on them with Kerry as President, they would never say so publicly. We do know FOR SURE that the SAUDIs support Bush-doen't that make you a little nervous??

Originally posted by Gigolo Jason
Here is another interesting link so show why Kerry will loose in 2004.

http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/wmd.htm

Check out the rest of that site for other wonderful John Kerry facts.
Nice post. How conveniently and expeditiously they forget.

This should be viewed by everyone posting political comments on this board. Unfortunately the Dems, the ones who need to see it the most, will probably ignore it. They need to change their national political symbol from the donkey to the ostrich.

It's funny how people bitch about Bush's service record in Vietnam.

Unlike Kerry, Bush has no service record in Vietnam. That's the point.

How about we cut rotarygod some slack and allow for what he obviously meant...Bush's service record DURING the Vietnam war.
Sheesh.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Unfortunately the Dems, the ones who need to see it the most, will probably ignore it. They need to change their national political symbol from the donkey to the ostrich.

Right after the Republicans change their symbol to a burning cross.

Originally posted by JasonHamilton
mpt_yellowRX8, how many positive things can you name that Kerry has done in his many years in public office? His record is fairly bare, the only thing he's really done right in his life was marry a rich woman.

Like I said before, it's not that Kerry is this awesome guy better for the job... it's just that he's the lesser evil between him and Bush.

Can you name one MAJOR thing BOTH Bush's have lied to the American people? Old Bush Sr. said No New Taxes.. gave his plan of conserving energy, new social welfare plans, increase jobs, ... then, when he gets into office, BAMN... what happened there? Everything went downhill. Bush Jr. told the American public he was going into Iraq because Sadam has weapons of mass destruction, Sadam will come to the US someday and kill us if we don't prevent this. BAMN... where is the weapons? Why change the stories?

Kerry MAY lie to us later... But Bush Jr. has already lied to the American people.

Originally posted by Seenitall
If they really supported Kerry because they thought the US would be easier on them with Kerry as President, they would never say so publicly. We do know FOR SURE that the SAUDIs support Bush-doen't that make you a little nervous??

Am I supposed to be anti-Bush because he alienates foreign governments, or because he has their support?

I am confused.

Originally posted by Outlaws eXtreme
Like I said before, it's not that Kerry is this awesome guy better for the job... it's just that he's the lesser evil between him and Bush.

Can you name one MAJOR thing BOTH Bush's have lied to the American people? Old Bush Sr. said No New Taxes.. gave his plan of conserving energy, new social welfare plans, increase jobs, ... then, when he gets into office, BAMN... what happened there? Everything went downhill. Bush Jr. told the American public he was going into Iraq because Sadam has weapons of mass destruction, Sadam will come to the US someday and kill us if we don't prevent this. BAMN... where is the weapons? Why change the stories?

Kerry MAY lie to us later... But Bush Jr. has already lied to the American people.

I remember a Dubya quote from Jan 2001 "This Administration will NOT be asking the American people to make any sacrifices to conserve our energy resources. "

Maybe its time for all of you right wingers to stop the BS about who said what and when and take a look at how the present Adminstration's decisions have affected your lives.
You are in an energy crisis that could throw your economy into a recession.
Your foreign policy is in shambles because of your present Adminstration'sd "In your face" style of diplomacy.
Your brave young people are being killed daily because your present Administration has stirred up Arab/Muslim hate by supportind Ari Sharon' s stirring the Israel-Palestinan problem, making it easy for the extemist factions to recruit suicide bombers and al Quaeda fighters.
Man, I could go on but I am a two finger typist and my fingers are tired
:)

Originally posted by I, Claudius
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rotarygod
It's funny how people bitch about Bush's service record in Vietnam.

Unlike Kerry, Bush has no service record in Vietnam. That's the point.

You REALLY need to read up on Kerry before you start holding him up as an example.

Here are some facts for you:

Kerry got 3 purple hearts. The first two were for very minor injuries that didn't even require stitches, just band-aids. His third purple heart wasn't that bad either, but he complained and managed to get 2 days off of work.

It was on his first mission that he managed to get his first purple heart....

Kerry had been wounded three times and received three Purple Hearts. Asked about the severity of the wounds, Kerry said that one of them cost him about two days of service, and that the other two did not interrupt his duty. "Walking wounded," as Kerry put it. Kerry declined a request from the Globe to sign a waiver authorizing the release of military documents that are covered under the Privacy Act and that might shed more light on the extent of the treatment Kerry needed as a result of the wounds.

Anyway, do you know why he was so intent to collect the purple hearts? Going to such extents to get them even when they weren't even warranted?

U.S. military procedure allowed any serviceman who received three Purple Hearts to request reassignment away from a combat zone. Kerry talked to Commodore Charles F. Horne, an administrative official and commander of the coastal squadron in which he served. Four days after Kerry took his third hit of shrapnel, Horne forwarded a request on Kerry's behalf to the Navy Bureau of Personnel asking that Kerry be reassigned to "duty as a personal aide in Boston, New York, or Washington, D.C." Soon afterwards Kerry was transferred to Cam Ranh Bay to await further orders, and within a month he had been reassigned as a personal aide and flag lieutenant to Rear Admiral Walter F. Schlech, Jr. with the Military Sea Transportation Service based in Brooklyn, New York.

Basically he did what he had to do in order to get the three purple hearts, then request to be moved to non combat positions. He then told them he wanted to run for congress and got out of service early. You know the rest of the story.

He is not an example for anyone to follow. He is a true politician.

So I fail to see why ANYONE would champion him as a great war hero. His actions were cowardly and his only motivation was to escape harm while others died.

Here is a spoof based on his history with purple hearts:
http://www.cooperforpresident.com/id205.html

I can understand why Canadians would be so worried about our political and economic situations, since they benefit so much from our military presence, though unfunded by them of course.

When they start contributing more to the world, or to the US, I suppose their comments will be more important to everyone.

To me your comments are like someone at a dinner party complaining about the wine list.

JasonHamilton, that is perfectly fine for the history of Kerry... that still does not make him a bad president to be.

Now let's look at Bush. He's a C+ student that dad was able to pull some string and push into Yale. He wasn't anything extrodinary. Afterwards he was in the National Guard, with the help of dad again. With more help of dad, Bush jr. did not need to go to Vietnam. To repay this love for his dad, he had to use some crazy excuse that Sadam and Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, thus we have to go over there and kill the man that tried to kill his dad. All of these he said himself. How are you ignoring all this is beyond me.

Bush Jr. has shown what he is capable of... and no I don't like either guy in the Oval office, but out of the two, the person that hasn't screwed with the American public is Kerry.

Originally posted by Outlaws eXtreme
To repay this love for his dad, he had to use some crazy excuse that Sadam and Iraq had weapons of mass destructio

I will be pleased to discuss this with you if you'd cut the crap and not make up weird motives for Bush. We have many years of many democrats and republicans mentioning Saddam and WMDs, long before Bush Jr came into the picture (see url mentioned previously: http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/wmd.htm ), yet you'd have me belive that it's all smoke and mirrors and Bush Jr made it up to pay back his father?

I can't even begin to see your logic. Reality does not back up your statements.

Originally posted by JasonHamilton
You REALLY need to read up on Kerry before you start holding him up as an example.

Here are some facts for you:

Kerry got 3 purple hearts.

He is not an example for anyone to follow. He is a true politician.

So I fail to see why ANYONE would champion him as a great war hero. His actions were cowardly and his only motivation was to escape harm while others died.

Here is a spoof based on his history with purple hearts:
http://www.cooperforpresident.com/id205.html

So: we should look with greater respect to a guy who used DRAG to leapfrog over hundreds of applicants to get into a Champaqne Texas Air National Guard Unit, and get his teeth checked in Alabama??
At least Kerry went to Nam Think HIS family had money and could probably have hidden him if he didn't want to serve.

Originally posted by Outlaws eXtreme
JasonHamilton, that is perfectly fine for the history of Kerry... that still does not make him a bad president to be.
No, you are right. His lack of decision-making ability and extreme liberalism (he is the most liberal Senator in the US, even worse than Ted Kennedy according to his voting record) make him an unfit president-he-only-wishes-he could-be. We already have better in place.

Originally posted by bowman
Am I supposed to be anti-Bush because he alienates foreign governments, or because he has their support?

I am confused.

He alienates any government that doesn't fall under the grand scheme of his plan. His economic plan. I find it rather coincidental that Haliburton has the majority contracts over in Iraq... find it rather coincidental that he is avoiding all of Saudi Arabia, homeland for Osama, yet concentrating on Iraq still, the rival of oil to Saudi Arabia.

You are to be Anti-Bush simply because he lied to the US citizens AND to the world that we were going into Iraq to stop terrorism and eliminate Weapons of Mass destruction. He lied to us that he knew nothing about the safe flights out of America for the Bin Laden family back to Saudi Arabia... yet public records has shown that to be the case. Don't you find it a coincidence that of all the flights that were grounded on 9-11 and the days after, that a special flight was arranged for the Bin Laden family to fly back to Saudi Arabia? You are to be Anti-Bush because he has shown that he knows very little about foreign diplomacy, disregarding what the UN has told him, and what the rest of the world has thought of how the Americans run things.

Basically when it comes down to it.. we have Kerry and we have Bush. One person tells fabricated lies that only makes himself look silly at times, the other person tells lies to further his agenda regardless of the consequences of the safety for his people. In the end, one person has saved lives in the miltary, and the other has sat behind his desk signing papers to ship more military over to another country to get killed for no good reason.

Well, the gas price around here has dropped about 20 cents in the past week so it looks like prices are going back down. The economy is rebounding and grows stronger every day. Do I know that there are problems, YES! Do I try to push them under the rug, NO! I look at what is going right. The economy has been rough since the dot-com bust and never really got back on track before 9/11. But we are slowing down with the spending, the good numbers are increasing and the bad numbers are decreasing, to simplify it to the utmost.

Bush now does nothing like his father did it. He intentionally stays away from things his father did to try to keep people from drawing a conclusion about doind his dad's work. Iraq is nothing like it was when his father was in office, it seems that it is both better and worse. We have lost more people than in the Gulf War, but we have completed the task we went to do. Afghanistan will be handled soon, though I would be happy if it were already handled with OBL.

As for the service records of the two candidates, look at them and decide if it makes a differnce. You can even find quotes from the doctor that treated Kerry while in Vietnam, but he doesn't speak to highly for Kerry and stated that he used a common scrape cream to treat the worst of his wounds. He also stated that Kerry went on and on about being the next JFK from Mass. and how the medals would secure him a spot of good favor in the democratic party. Sounds like you can't be too proud of your guys records either. Also, many men on the boat that day have stated that the shrapnel he took was from a mortar that was fired BY Kerry at the bank of the river that they were in. The mortar blew up and shrapnel bounced all over the place, including a fingernail sized piece in his forearm.

Seenitall, Why would a Canadian be worried about the US election? We haven't threatened you yet! j/k

Originally posted by babylou
Right after the Republicans change their symbol to a burning cross. I suppose you are comparing Republlicans with racists. Funny since Kerry is the candidate under fire for the lack of minorities in his inner circle of political advisors. I guess in Senator Kerry's world, the only place for minorities is serving the creme brule and cleaning up.

Originally posted by Seenitall
So: we should look with greater respect to a guy who used DRAG to leapfrog over hundreds of applicants to get into a Champaqne Texas Air National Guard Unit, and get his teeth checked in Alabama??
At least Kerry went to Nam Think HIS family had money and could probably have hidden him if he didn't want to serve.

I want you to stop your line of thought and think about the discussion.

Bush isn't the one championing his military record.

Kerry brings up Vietnam every 2 seconds.

If Bush was running around bragging about his military record, I'd also be on his case, but he isn't.

It's called being hypocritical.

Kerry isn't what he claims to be, and you will be hard pressed to prove me wrong.

Originally posted by JasonHamilton
I will be pleased to discuss this with you if you'd cut the crap and not make up weird motives for Bush. We have many years of many democrats and republicans mentioning Saddam and WMDs, long before Bush Jr came into the picture (see url mentioned previously: http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/wmd.htm ), yet you'd have me belive that it's all smoke and mirrors and Bush Jr made it up to pay back his father?

I can't even begin to see your logic. Reality does not back up your statements.

Logic? He was the man that said it himself...

QUOTE..

And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."

END Quote.

And if you think I got that quote from some Anti-Bush website... here is just ONE of the many locations you can find this quote.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/

Of course he didn't do all this JUST for one reason.. I'm not Bush, I don't know his motives. I can only use what he informs to us. This was his quote. He said it himself, he is upset about Sadam trying to kill his dad. Then he said this...

QUOTE..

He also said that, if the United Nations fails to adopt a tough resolution, then the "United States will lead a coalition" and confront Iraq and force it to disarm outside of any new U.N. mandate.

END Quote.

Does this sound like someone that wants to help the world? Or someone that wants to rule the world in the way he sees it?

Weird Motives? Are you trying to tell me that he DIDN'T lie to the American public about the reason we went into Iraq? No other President has EVER used weapons of mass destuction to go into a country and take over their government. If Weapons of mass destruction was such a priority, then why didn't Bush go to North Korea? Or Pakistan? Or Saudi Arabia for that same reason.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
No, you are right. His lack of decision-making ability and extreme liberalism (he is the most liberal Senator in the US, even worse than Ted Kennedy according to his voting record) make him an unfit president-he-only-wishes-he could-be. We already have better in place.

So we are suppose to support a Born again Christian, preaching the word of GOD, Extreme Conservative, Macho, Swinging a big stick for a President? Bush's decision-making ability has lead our people into a faithless 'war', and more and more soldiers are killed everyday. His decision-making has lead the current economy to decline every single day, yet he keeps telling the people... "It'll be alright once the war is over." That's not a plan.

Is it really that bad for a President to be Liberal?

Originally posted by Outlaws eXtreme
And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."

And if you think I got that quote from some Anti-Bush website... here is just ONE of the many locations you can find this quote.

I don't follow. Are you claiming that Saddam didn't try to assassinate Bush Sr.?


He also said that, if the United Nations fails to adopt a tough resolution, then the "United States will lead a coalition" and confront Iraq and force it to disarm outside of any new U.N. mandate.


Yes, and how long did it take for him to warn Saddam until we went into Iraq? If I were president, I don't know if I would have waited as long. The U.N. is a joke. I hope you realize this. It's inability to perform even the simplest of tasks or enforcing it's actions/decisions have only reenforced this fact.

Originally posted by mpt_yellowRX8


Seenitall, Why would a Canadian be worried about the US election? We haven't threatened you yet! j/k
Jeeze, man to Canada, its like being in bed with an elephant. When the elephant rolls over, ya gotta face the consequenses:D
The US is THE COUNTRY. Your electoral decisions shape the world. I dont mind saying that because I ultimately believe in the USpeople (Although not necessarilty with the curreent Administration)
:)

JasonHamilton, are you telling me that his hatred for Sadam wasn't one of the reasons he sent the troops over there? Yes, Sadam hired assasins to try and take out his dad... so if someone ever tries to kill my dad, I will become President, use my power and have all the troops go over there, capture that guy, and in the process have a few of our troops die. You don't think this was ONE of the reasons he went over there?

Your second statement just shows how you disregard the rest of the world as much as Bush Jr. does. We live in this world with other people in it. The UN is made up of OTHER nations. Do you not find it somewhat wrong when the REST of the nations are telling us it's a bad idea to invade Iraq (Except Britain and the tiny country that Bush gave monetary support to)? Then we do so anyways? Are you telling all of us here that Bush Jr.'s concern was about SAVING the Iraqi' people? That he was there to Liberate the people? That wasn't his original excuse to invade Iraq btw. It was his "WMD" speach to the UN. It was his speech that mentioned how Iraq is a supporter of Al-Quaeda, and we need to go over there and eliminate this threat.

Originally posted by Outlaws eXtreme
So we are suppose to support a Born again Christian, preaching the word of GOD, Extreme Conservative, Macho, Swinging a big stick for a President? Bush's decision-making ability has lead our people into a faithless 'war', and more and more soldiers are killed everyday. His decision-making has lead the current economy to decline every single day, yet he keeps telling the people... "It'll be alright once the war is over." That's not a plan.

Is it really that bad for a President to be Liberal?
1) any electable president will likely espouse Christianity, simply because to do otherwise is political suicide. The majority rules, tempered by the electoral college of course. :D

2) Macho, big stick = protection for our citizens and national pride

3) The number of soldiers killed in this war pales in comparison to even the number of civilians killed in the terrorist attacks on 9/11, much less than the military casualties of previous wars. Perspective is important. There is no way to completely avoid casualties in a hostile environment.

4) The economy is improving every day, and has been revitalized by Bush's tax cuts as well as other initiatives. Most major economic indicators are improving. If the unemployment rate continues it's recent and projected decline, it will be the lowest for any sitting president seeking re-election in recent history.

Originally posted by JasonHamilton
I don't follow. Are you claiming that Saddam didn't try to assassinate Bush Sr.?


Ya JH- you willing to expose YOUR ASS in Iraq cause Dubya ghad a score tosettle with Saddam

Originally posted by Seenitall
Ya JH- you willing to expose YOUR ASS in Iraq cause Dubya ghad a score tosettle with Saddam

What are you saying?

If I were called in for duty, I would go.

But.... I also have to say that I'm too old to be drafted, so you can never be sure if I'm telling the truth, as this question cannot be tested.

Originally posted by JasonHamilton
What are you saying?

If I were called in for duty, I would go.

But.... I also have to say that I'm too old to be drafted, so you can never be sure if I'm telling the truth, as this question cannot be tested.

Sorry misread post apologies.:)

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
I can understand why Canadians would be so worried about our political and economic situations, since they benefit so much from our military presence, though unfunded by them of course.

When they start contributing more to the world, or to the US, I suppose their comments will be more important to everyone.

To me your comments are like someone at a dinner party complaining about the wine list.

This, right here, is the epitome of the Bush administration's methods of international diplomacy. I wonder if this person, or the Bush administration brain trust, have any idea that Canadians fought along with Americans in WW1, WW2 including D-Day, Korea, Vietnam (covertly) and is a member of NATO and NORAD. All of this after we invaded them in 1812! Finally, the Canadians gave us Shania Twain. I'd say, overall they are as good a neighbor as one could get. Except for Jacques Villeneuve.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
I can understand why Canadians would be so worried about our political and economic situations, since they benefit so much from our military presence, though unfunded by them of course.

When they start contributing more to the world, or to the US, I suppose their comments will be more important to everyone.

To me your comments are like someone at a dinner party complaining about the wine list.

Doc, dont get me started. Ya better take look at history before you start in on "So, what have you done for me lately" Canada was involved in two World Wars, each time two years before the US decided it was in THEIR INTERESTS to get invelved.
In the Korean War a Cadadian Infantry Regiment received the US Presidential Unit Citation for their actions at Kapyong.
We IMMEDIATELY signed on for duty in Afghanistan when the US actioned there.
We sent troops to Bosnia and also are in Haiti.
Your present Administration dissess us because we didnt agree that there was a clear and imminent danger from Iraq. (Guess what- we were right, no WMD)
Your Present Administration has bullied and dissed the rest of the World to the point where you are going to need a change of Government before you are going to get world support.
Lets not bullshit one another.
THE US ACTS THEIR OWN BEST INTEREST, NOT BECAUSE OF ANY ALTRUISTIC NEED TO MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR DEMOCRACY. Your CIA engineeged a coupe in Chile that overturned a democratically elected government that happened to be socialist and installed Pinochet, a brutal dictator. How bout El Salvador, or Iran-Contra?
Your best friend in the Arab world , Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship, and also happens to be the source of funding for al Quaeda, and the home nation of most of the 9/11 hijackers. But these dictators play the game the way the US likes, so its OK.
If it troubles you that someone from another country should exrecise their freedom of speech and comment on a thread in this forum, thats your problem,not mine.

Take a look at yourself before you lay into others for their lack of effort.:D

The real truth.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

I love how this is to president Clinton as well. That just takes the cake. :D

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
Senator Kerry's comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.

Kerry's views stretched over two administrations. Make no mistake, this is HIS agenda.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003
In a speech to Georgetown University.

I can't wait to hear Kerry's position on this one. His stomach must be churning trying to decide which group to side with. I love drama.


Gay supporters denied communion at Chicago Mass
Minnesota Catholics blocked at altar
Monday, May 31, 2004 Posted: 8:03 AM EDT (1203 GMT)

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Parishioners who wore rainbow-colored sashes to Mass in support of gays and lesbians were denied communion in Chicago, while laymen in Minnesota tried to prevent gay Roman Catholics from getting the sacrament.

Priests at Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago refused to give the Eucharist to about 10 people wearing the sashes at Sunday Mass. One priest shook each person's hand; another made the sign of the cross on their foreheads.

"The priest told me you cannot receive communion if you're wearing a sash, as per the Cardinal's direction," said James Luxton, a Chicago member of the Rainbow Sash Movement, an organization of Catholic gay-rights supporters with chapters around the country.

An internal memo from Chicago Cardinal Francis George that became public last week instructed priests not to give communion to people wearing the sashes, which the group's members wear every year for Pentecost.

The memo says the sashes are a symbol of opposition to the church's doctrine on homosexuality and exploit the communion ritual.

"The Rainbow Sash movement wants its members to be fully accepted by the Church not on the same conditions as any Catholic but precisely as gay," George wrote. "With this comes the requirement that the Church change her moral teaching."

The movement, which started about five years ago in England, also has members in Dallas, Texas; New Orleans, Louisiana; New York and Rochester, New York.

A Vatican doctrinal decree last year directed at Catholic politicians said a well-formed conscience forbids support for any law that contradicts "fundamental" morality, with abortion listed first among relevant issues. A second Vatican statement said it is "gravely immoral" not to oppose legalization of same-sex unions.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Midwest/05/31/gays.communion.ap/index.html

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein

John Kerry, in his own words, Part II

http://members.aol.com/kerrydanger1/callmeirresponsibleF.swf

Why Kerry is dangerious for America.

Gigalo,

Please explain the positive benefits of electing Bush this November...


I'd like to hear more about that.

Originally posted by JasonHamilton
I want you to stop your line of thought and think about the discussion.

Bush isn't the one championing his military record.

Kerry brings up Vietnam every 2 seconds.

If Bush was running around bragging about his military record, I'd also be on his case, but he isn't.

It's called being hypocritical.

Kerry isn't what he claims to be, and you will be hard pressed to prove me wrong.

Nobody is what they claim to be. My post was not a reaction to anything George Bush said, but rather a response to comments made by Bush apologists.
Fact: Kerry was there.
Fact: Bush was not.
If George Bush wants to get all jazzed up in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier under a Mission Accomplished sign that his people said was put in place by the ships crew, later on we find out that Bushes guys brought the damn thing with them, that is posturing, too. There is enough hypocrisy to go all around.
SORRY MY POSTS ARE SO SLOW-i ONLY GOT 2 FINGERS:) :)

Selling Out Democracy
Kerry's China Connection

By David Lindorff

The world's struggling democracies and democratic activists should not be terribly sanguine about the prospects of a John Kerry presidency.

Not if Kerry is serious--and the man aptly described as resembling a dead Abraham Lincoln is nothing if not serious--in his thinking about Taiwan.

In a January debate among the Democratic presidential hopefuls, Kerry said that Taiwan should adhere to a "ne-country, two systems" approach in its relations with the People's Republic of China.

Now this long-time member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee surely knows that "ne-country, two systems" is one of those clumsy shorthand linguistic formulations popular with the Chinese Communist Party, developed in this case during negotiations with the British during the process of the handover of their colony of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty. The slogan was described by China at the time to mean that Hong Kong would become a part of China, but would be allowed to keep its traditional freedoms of speech, press, religion, etc., and control over its own economy and courts.

There were promises that after 2007, the public would for the first time even get to elect their own governor, and that later, after 2011, they could elect their legislature, a majority of which under the British were appointed by business interests or the colonial authority. The important point in all this, however, was that China had sovereignty over Hong Kong. Hong Kong law would be subordinate to Chinese law, and Hong Kong government actions would be subject to Chinese veto. In fact, since the 1997 handover China has put considerable pressure on those freedoms it permitted, is now backing off of its promise to permit election of the governor, is saying election of the full legislative counsel may be put off for three decades, and is even accusing democratic activists of being "unpatriotic."

Taiwan, as would-be president Kerry surely knows, is an entirely different situation. It is in no way subordinated or subject to Chinese rule or law. The island has been completely independent of and separate from China since 1949, when Mao Zedong's victorious People's Liberation Army drove the corrupt Nationalist Army of Chiang Kai-shek to retreat there, where he established a ruthless dictatorship over the local Taiwanese population and claimed his government was the legitimate heir to the Republican China founded in 1911 with the overthrow of the Manchu dynasty. Over the years, while the People's Republic remained a stifling Communist one-party dictatorship, Taiwan has evolved into a rough-and-tumble democracy. The majority Taiwanese through the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party, currently control the presidency, but also play a major role in the old Kuomintang, or Nationalist Party of Chiang Kai-shek, which advocates a more conservative and conciliatory approach towards China.

The reality is that virtually no one in Taiwan, regardless of party, wants anything to do with the massively discredited "one-country, two systems" charade which China foisted on the people of Hong Kong. While there is bitter debate over whether to boldly confront China by eventually declaring full independence, or to maintain the long-standing ambiguous stance of pretending that there is only one China but that eventually the Communists will fall and Taiwan will rejoin a reborn pan-China "Republic," Kerry's notion that the Taiwanese people must or ought to accept Chinese sovereignty on the Hong Kong "one country, two-systems" model is either ludicrous or a treacherous betrayal of a people.

Some in the Kerry camp have tried to suggest that the candidate simply misspoke, and meant to say he supported the "one China" policy established during the Nixon administration, when the U.S. stopped recognizing Taiwan as being the real China, and acknowledged Beijing as the government of China. In that formulation, the de facto independence of Taiwan is acknowledged by the U.S., which has embassy officers there (in all but name), sells it defensive weaponry, and, on occasion, even provides it with military back-up when China threatens (as it has been doing lately in the run-up to the presidential election in Taiwan later this month). The problem is, Kerry is not particularly given to blurting out gaffes, and besides, his background on the Foreign Relations Committee has surely made him quite familiar with the nuances of the China/Taiwan relationship. He can't claim ignorance.

Besides, Kerry has something of a history of selling out the Taiwanese.

As early as April 25, 2001, before he was a candidate for president, Kerry, in a speech on the Senate floor, actually berated Pres. Bush for asserting that U.S. policy was to defend Taiwan against attack by China. While Bush's statement was indeed a more direct promise of support than any president had made in recent years, Kerry's rebuke was a more glaring backing away from support of Taiwan than any president or major policy maker in memory.

It's worrisome too that Kerry was another recipient of funds from Johnny Chung, a Taiwanese-American businessman and his associate, Liu Chaoying, a Hong Kong businessman, whose political activities became a scandal during the 1996 Clinton campaign. It turned out that Liu, whom Kerry helped in his effort to get a Chinese-based company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was actually an officer in the Chinese People's Liberation Army, which was also an owner of the company in question.

While it's a stretch to imagine that Kerry is or was acting in the interests of the PLA (particularly given that its ownership of business interests, while wide-ranging, is also carefully concealed through front companies), his willingness to accept money from such China-linked businesses, whether foreign or American, suggests where the real problem lies.

China these days is a multinational corporate wet dream--easy money to be made and lots of it--and politicians on both sides of the aisle in America are being buttered up with legal campaign funds designed to induce them to adopt foreign policies that favor China business, and that might make China's rulers favorably disposed towards the U.S. One way to keep Beijing happy: put the screws to Taiwan.

If this is the kind of pro-corporate foreign policy we can expect from a Kerry presidency, the future looks grim not just for the democratic citizenry of Taiwan, but for struggling democracy advocates in other parts of the world (Vietnam, Indonesia, Burma, Nigeria and of course Iraq come immediately to mind) where the amount of money to be made likely trumps other more progressive concerns.

Gigolo,

Please explain the positive benefits of electing Bush this November...


I'd like to hear more about that.


Please do it without a direct repost of someone else's "talking points".

Oh, and you're not allowed to mention Kerry or Clinton ...


Looking forward to it. Thanks.

Originally posted by o0o0o

Gigolo,.

You finally spelled my name right.

Please explain the positive benefits of electing Bush this November...


I'd like to hear more about that.

"You don't change horses in mid stream or you and the horse will drown."

Now why don't you read this entire thread from beginning to now, along with all the reasons why Kerry is an ineffective candidate and will loose, and you come to a conclusion other then the one stated in my first post on this thread. Go!

P.S. By the way, I never mentioned Kerry or Clinton in this response, as requested. :D You can't mention Bush or Cheney and you have to play nice as well. ;)

John Kerry's foreign policy is a mirror image of the current administrations. YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3755807.stm

Based on Senator John Kerry's Thursday speech laying out his vision for American foreign policy, most US voters would be hard pressed to find much difference between the challenger and the incumbent George W Bush........

Originally posted by Gigolo Jason

You finally spelled my name right.

"You don't change horses in mid stream or you and the horse will drown."

Now why don't you read this entire thread from beginning to now, along with all the reasons why Kerry is an ineffective candidate and will loose, and you come to a conclusion other then the one stated in my first post on this thread. Go!



I'm sorry you couldn't figure out who I was refering to the first time, when I typed "gigalo" instead. I thought it was rather obvious myself.


BTW, I have read this thread from the beginning, and I'm still looking for a solid reason to vote for Bush. Posting ad-hominem attacks on Kerry isn't a very convincing reason.

I was hoping you might have something more positive to go on, like what a second Bush term will mean for america or maybe why his first term has been so great.

However, I'm starting to think you do not have any positive things to say about "your" candidate, his record, or his vision of America's future.

Your current answer of "not changing horses mid-stream", is vague at best.

I look forward to your positive and informative comments on why Bush deserves my vote. Thanks.

Here's one.

http://www.smartmoney.com/tax/filing/index.cfm?story=bushtaxcut

This is simple, this is a discussion is about how John Kerry is a bad candidate and will make a bad president. I have given many examples and reasons in this post and will give more as they arise.

Here's another 52 reasons.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/ny-iraq-cards,0,2265389.photogallery?coll=bal-iraq-storyutil

Here's a few hundred thousand more:

Who do the troops support? Overwhelmingly President Bush.

We have several active and retired military personnel on this forum, and I have never read one post from any of them that are for Kerry. Why is that?

Despite all the liberal hand-wringing, the ones doing the fighting want our current president to remain in office. Shouldn't we actually support their wishes instead of paying lip service to them?

Sen. Kerry's Defence Department Voting Record.

Sen. Kerry Voted Against B-1 Bomber. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against B-2 Stealth Bomber. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against F-14. (H. R. 5803, CQ Vote #319: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against F-15. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against F-16. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against AV-8B Harrier Vertical Takeoff And Landing Jet Fighters. (H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against AH-64 Apache Helicopters. (H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against Patriot Missiles. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against Aegis Air Defense Cruiser. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against Trident Missile System For U.S. Submarines. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against M-1 Abrams Tanks. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against Bradley Fighting Vehicle. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Sen. Kerry Voted Against Tomahawk Cruise Missile. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Opposed Weapons Critical To Recent Military Successes

Running For Senate In 1984, Kerry Promised Massive Defense Cuts."Kerry in 1984 said he would have voted to cancel ... the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system. He also advocated reductions in many other systems, such as the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet." (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)

Weapons Kerry Sought To Phase Out Were Vital In Iraq."Kerry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might -- the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks." (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)

Originally posted by Gigolo Jason
Sen. Kerry's Defence Department Voting Record.

etc... etc...



http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177


Cheney told the House Armed Services Committee on Aug. 13, 1989:

Cheney: The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64; . . . I forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.

Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81 Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons," the Boston Globe reported at the time.

Does that make Cheney an opponent of "weapons vital to winning the war on terror?" Of course not. But by the Bush campaign's logic, Cheney himself would be vulnerable to just such a charge, and so would Bush's father, who was president at the time.

Maybe it's difficult to see, but there is a difference between choosing to eliminate -some- items due to budget considerations, and having a lifetime record of trying to cut the military off at it's knees.

From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity
Scholars Say Campaign Is Making History With Often-Misleading Attacks


Last Monday in Little Rock, Vice President Cheney said Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry "has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all" and said the senator from Massachusetts "promised to repeal most of the Bush tax cuts within his first 100 days in office."

On Tuesday, President Bush's campaign began airing an ad saying Kerry would scrap wiretaps that are needed to hunt terrorists.

The same day, the Bush campaign charged in a memo sent to reporters and through surrogates that Kerry wants to raise the gasoline tax by 50 cents.

On Wednesday and Thursday, as Kerry campaigned in Seattle, he was greeted by another Bush ad alleging that Kerry now opposes education changes that he supported in 2001.

The charges were all tough, serious -- and wrong, or at least highly misleading. Kerry did not question the war on terrorism, has proposed repealing tax cuts only for those earning more than $200,000, supports wiretaps, has not endorsed a 50-cent gasoline tax increase in 10 years, and continues to support the education changes, albeit with modifications.

Scholars and political strategists say the ferocious Bush assault on Kerry this spring has been extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts. Though stretching the truth is hardly new in a political campaign, they say the volume of negative charges is unprecedented -- both in speeches and in advertising.

Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.

...

More:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3222-2004May30?language=printer

Originally posted by JasonHamilton
Maybe it's difficult to see, but there is a difference between choosing to eliminate -some- items due to budget considerations, and having a lifetime record of trying to cut the military off at it's knees.



"After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office."

The speaker was President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992.



Originally posted by Gigolo Jason


Sen. Kerry Voted Against B-1 Bomber. (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay)




Almost all of them cite Kerry's vote on Senate bill S. 3189 (CQ Vote No. 273) on Oct. 15, 1990. Do a Google search, and you will learn that S. 3189 was the Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act, and CQ Vote No. 273 was a vote on the entire bill. There was no vote on those weapons systems specifically.

On a couple of the weapons, the RNC report cites H.R. 5803 and H.R. 2126. Look those up. They turn out to be votes on the House-Senate conference committee reports for the defense appropriations bills in October 1990 (the same year as S. 3189) and September 1995.

In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank dishonesty.


More:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/

I don't know why you're quoting me as saying stuff I didn't.

Originally posted by JasonHamilton
I don't know why you're quoting me as saying stuff I didn't.


Musta been a glitch.. sorry. Fixed.

I agree with Jason Hamilton, John Kerry's record speaks for itself. He has constantly tried to cut the military off at the knees and turn it into a cut rate force. His ideas are dangerous during piece time and potentially catastrophic during war time. I have listed why in this thread. I don't feel the need to repeat myself for the likes of O-boy above.

Originally posted by Gigolo Jason
I agree with Jason Hamilton, John Kerry's record speaks for itself. He has constantly tried to cut the military off at the knees and turn it into a cut rate force. His ideas are dangerous during piece time and potentially catastrophic during war time. I have listed why in this thread. I don't feel the need to repeat myself for the likes of O-boy above.

Thats funny considering, your reasons have been proved to be dishonest.

Oh well... I guess when faced with the full facts, you have no defense of your own.



The RNC doesn't mention it, but Kerry also supported amendments to limit (but not kill) funding for President Reagan's fanciful (and eventually much-altered) "Star Wars" missile-defense system. Kerry sponsored amendments to ban tests of anti-satellite weapons, as long as the Soviet Union also refrained from testing. In retrospect, trying to limit the vulnerability of satellites was a very good idea since many of our smart bombs are guided to their targets by signals from satellites.

Kerry also voted for amendments to restrict the deployment of the MX missile (Reagan changed its deployment plan several times, and Bush finally stopped the program altogether) and to ban the production of nerve-gas weapons.

At the same time, in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.)

Are there votes in Kerry's 20-year record as a senator that might look embarrassing in retrospect? Probably. But these are not the ones.



Maybe you would like to read about it in full:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/

There is a lot more to being a good senator than to just vote for all military funding, or to voting for no military funding. You can't afford it all, and you can't afford to have none. You would have to do a lot better than pick out all the times Kerry voted no to prove that he has an anti-military voting record. I would hope that all legislatures are thoughtful about what they vote for, and pick the programs that give us the best bang for the buck.

Now, for a real life recent history fresh in our minds where Bush/Rummy/Cheney undercut the military. The military plans on the book for invading Iraq called for over 400,000 troops. Rummy insisted that with modern armaments the invasion could succeed with far fewer. No matter how often Gen Frank's reworked the plans Rummy said to make the troup count smaller. Sure enough, we blasted through Iraq just like Rummy said with a remarkably small army. They forgot one thing. All that armament was (and is) useless when it comes to providing security. You need to have feet on the ground. Every ex-general who is free to speak will tell you that Rummy cut it too thin for the job that had to be done.

Rummy will also tell you that we can have our advantures abroad and not have a draft. Sure. Good luck. Even Bush wouldn't volunteer for the National Guard under these circumstance. I mean, sh*t, you might actually have to fight!

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Here's a few hundred thousand more:

Who do the troops support? Overwhelmingly President Bush.

We have several active and retired military personnel on this forum, and I have never read one post from any of them that are for Kerry. Why is that?

Despite all the liberal hand-wringing, the ones doing the fighting want our current president to remain in office. Shouldn't we actually support their wishes instead of paying lip service to them?

I suppose my friend that just served for 1 year 9 months over there in the Army Rangers is just one of the small section of military soldiers that DON'T support Bush, and felt betrayed. He told me personally that he felt betrayed. He told me that his friends in his division also felt betrayed. He had to see 2 of his friends die, and later being lied to... finding out instead of going home as planned, he had to stay longer, to fight a false war. His direct words.

I guess the straight out fact that I've yet to hear we've found any weapons of mass destruction, and that was the ORIGINAL reason we were over there means very little to Gigolo. I guess he's happy with the way Bush has run the government, leading our troops into a false war, having many of them killed... to further what exactly? Al-Quaeda is still running around, terrorists are still bombing stuff, hostages are still grabbed... and the American public is still seeing "ORANGE ALERT, YELLOW ALERT."

I guess you are satisfied that we captured Sadam, yet Osama is still "supposedly" not captured out there. I suppose a good President is one who lies to start a conflict, have innocent people killed, and to have the rest of the world despise us. Great President.

Vote Bush - Why does everybody blame Bush for the economy? Before Bush took office the economy was already heading for a recession. 9-11 took the recession further. So it was happening anyway nomatter who would have took office. It was just worst than expected due to 9-11. As the past couple of months have went the economy is on the up and up. Yes that right so looks like Bush's plan has helped there.
You say there was no WMD's. then why was ammo with sarin gas found and used on American forces (oh thats right Sadaam said he had none). I guess everybody forgot about that. If you think about it If I gave you 3 or more months to hide something, I think you could do it.
Lets look at Kerry's war record that he is so found of. Kerry is a war criminal (According to the Geneva Conventions). He has even admitted to it. So for him to say anything about Bush needing to step down for what happened with the prisoner abuse scandles is just ludicris. Bush had nothing to do with it. Kerry even voted against a bill that would give soldiers body armour and things that they need to fight this war.
Kerry has contradicted himself so many times that who knows what he stands for. Apparantly nothing.
Well I could go on and on but I won't. Just know that I am in the military and I support my Comander in Chief 100% and it will be a sad day if Bush loses the election to someone like Kerry.

Originally posted by JimJimElf
You say there was no WMD's. then why was ammo with sarin gas found and used on American forces (oh thats right Sadaam said he had none). I guess everybody forgot about that. If you think about it If I gave you 3 or more months to hide something, I think you could do it.

Bush's administration has already stated that it was a mistake and mislead information that was mentioned about the Weapons of Mass Destruction. In the original list of "WMD" that should have been found were nuclear warheads, uranium cores, and biological warfare that can be used were some on that list. We have yet to find a trace of that. They sure can hide those things, but can't hide their leader?

Surprise people to this day still think this was the reason we went into Iraq for.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Here's a few hundred thousand more:

Who do the troops support? Overwhelmingly President Bush.

Let's see the polls. Let's see the surveys. (You and I are both on record as not trusting polls, but this is a pretty sweeping statement to make without proof.)

We have several active and retired military personnel on this forum, and I have never read one post from any of them that are for Kerry. Why is that?

I don't know. With a few exceptions, the majority of the people on this forum who identify themselves as active or retired military personnel seem to stay out of these debates completely (smart people). Even if all of them turn out to be fervent Bush supporters, it's hardly a statistically meaningful sample.

Despite all the liberal hand-wringing, the ones doing the fighting want our current president to remain in office. Shouldn't we actually support their wishes instead of paying lip service to them?

First of all, you don't actually know who "the ones doing the fighting" want as president. Given that your first premise is yet to be proven, let's reserve debate on the second one until you can back up your assertion.

I wonder if you remember in the 2000 election, when the Democrats wanted to invalidate the overseas military Florida ballots, robbing our servicemen of their right to have their vote counted. I will never forget that. There were some Democrats at least who seemed to believe that the majority of servicemen would vote for Bush then, and as it turned out, they were right.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15630

"Only one group, overseas military personnel, had an organized and systematic campaign, including an extensive five-page memo distributed by Democrat political operatives, to disqualify their votes," said Combest, referring to Tallahassee lawyer Mark Herron's memo sent to all 67 Florida counties instructing local canvassing boards how to legally toss military ballots -- said by most analysts to likely have favored George W. Bush.

"This is an outrage, not only to servicemen and servicewomen, but also to all Americans," he added. "If Florida election officials will not count legitimate ballots sent in good faith, then Congress will force them to do so."

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
I wonder if you remember in the 2000 election, when the Democrats wanted to invalidate the overseas military Florida ballots, robbing our servicemen of their right to have their vote counted. I will never forget that. There were some Democrats at least who seemed to believe that the majority of servicemen would vote for Bush then, and as it turned out, they were right.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15630

You're sidestepping the question. Gimme proof - surveys, polls, statistics. I'm not talking about the 2000 election - we weren't in a wretchedly mismanaged war during the 2000 election, and American soldiers weren't dying. I'm talking about now, and I'm asking you to back up your sweeping assertion that the troops "overwhelmingly" support Bush's election.

Here's a little list of randomly compiled sources for information on the subject of military support for Bush and the war.

Most people have probably already heard retired Marine general Anthony Zinni's recent criticism of the Bush administration's actions in Iraq. He was against the invasion before it started, and his view hasn't softened. Here's what he said in an interview a week or so back: "In the lead-up to the Iraq War and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence, and irresponsibility, at worst, lying, incompetence and corruption."

Zinni certainly qualifies as retired military personnel, and his reputation as a soldier and military scholar is unassailable.

Link to Zinni story: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

Back in January, the Army War College published a scathing report that broadly criticizes the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism - among other things, the report accused Bush of taking a detour into an "unnecessary" war in Iraq and pursuing an "unrealistic" quest against terrorism "that may lead to U.S. wars with states that pose no serious threat."

Link to article on War College report: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8435-2004Jan11?language=printer

Link to full text of the report itself: http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/bounding/bounding.htm

GQ Magazine recently published an interview with Powell and members of his staff: Powell's chief of staff is quoted as saying that "the secretary of state is fed up with apologising for the administration and is disdainful of 'ideological' hawks.'” (Some of you may recall that Powell is one of the few members of the Bush administration with actual military experience - no wonder they froze him out.)

Link to Powell story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1210391,00.html

There are a number of veterans' organizations that oppose the Iraq war; one of them is Veterans Against the Iraq War (a logical enough name). Here's a link to their website; it includes some links to interesting articles on this subject:

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php

One of the articles I found on the VAIW site comes from the 11/03 issue of Washington Monthly. Here's an excerpt:

‘According to a study conducted in mid-October by Stars and Stripes, half of American soldiers in-country say their units have low morale, that they were insufficiently trained, and that they won't reenlist. The ubiquity of email in Iraq means that husbands, wives, families, and friends of these troops have a mainline to these gripes, and to the day-to-day grit and threat of combat, that they haven't had in previous wars. Holly Rossi, whose husband, Rob, is an Army reserve engineer out of Londonderry, N.H., has watched the Family Support Group for his unit, wives who started the war as staunch pro-Bush patriots, come to doubt the political mission. "A lot of people feel tugged. We have built our lives around ... patriotism no matter what, but we're feeling very abandoned." Charles Carter, a retired Naval chief petty officer, told Knight Ridder : "I will vote non-Republican in a heartbeat if it continues as is."’

Link: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0311.wallace-wells.html

Speaking of the Stars & Stripes survey, here's a link to what I assume is the survey to which the Washington Monthly article refers. The editors concede that this is not a "scientific survey," but it does provide a multiplicity of perspectives on the question of whether or not the troops support Bush and/or the war as it's being conducted. It certainly complicates any simple-minded notion that troops monolithically and "overwhelmingly" support any single position as regards the election:

http://www.stripes.com/morale/

I realize these sources aren't all up to the high standards of NewsMax or Worldnet Daily, but I hope people will consider them.

Originally posted by JimJimElf
Vote Bush - Why does everybody blame Bush for the economy? Before Bush took office the economy was already heading for a recession. 9-11 took the recession further. So it was happening anyway nomatter who would have took office. It was just worst than expected due to 9-11. As the past couple of months have went the economy is on the up and up. Yes that right so looks like Bush's plan has helped there.

The government produced a deficit of $299.5 billion in the first half of the 2004 budget year, the Treasury Department reported Tuesday.

For the budget year that began Oct. 1, spending totaled $1.1 trillion, while revenues came to $850.4 billion.

The year-to-date deficit showed the government bleeding more red ink than the $253.1 billion shortfall recorded for the corresponding period last year. The latest figures underscore the worsening state of the government's balance sheets.

The White House expects the deficit for the entire budget year to balloon to $521 billion, while the Congressional Budget Office is forecasting $477 billion in red ink. Either projection would mark a record in dollar terms.

More:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/13/politics/main611654.shtml



Over the past two years, our country has experienced a dramatic deterioration in the federal budget outlook. In January 2001, when President George W. Bush took office, the Congressional Budget Office projected budget surpluses of $5.6 trillion from 2002 to 2011. Now, it projects hundreds of billions of dollars in deficits over the same period.

Having pushed big tax cuts in 2001 and 2002, and another one now in 2003, the Bush administration has adopted a series of mantras in response to the fiscal debacle: It's not our fault; even if it is our fault, it is not a big problem; and even if it is a big problem, the solution is more tax cuts. These claims have become increasingly outlandish as time marches on.

The second mantra—that deficits don't really matter—goes against economic theory, evidence and common sense. Along with many other economists, we believe that there is compelling evidence that projected future budget deficits raise interest rates. Those who share this belief include Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan and Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, whom Bush nominated to be head of the Council of Economic Advisors.

More:
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/gale/20030509.htm




Originally posted by JimJimElf
You say there was no WMD's. then why was ammo with sarin gas found and used on American forces (oh thats right Sadaam said he had none). I guess everybody forgot about that. If you think about it If I gave you 3 or more months to hide something, I think you could do it.

Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, said the discovery does not provide evidence that Saddam was secretly producing weapons of mass destruction after the Gulf War, as alleged by the Bush administration to justify the war that removed him from power.

May be pre-Gulf War leftover
“I think all of us have known that because of the sheer volume of artillery [containing agents like sarin that were in the Iraqi arsenal prior to the Gulf War] ... that there were likely to be some of these still around Iraq,” he told MSNBC TV. “But [the discovery] doesn't speak to the issue of whether weapons of mass destruction were still being produced in Iraq in the mid-1990s.”

Antidotes to nerve gases similar to sarin are so effective that top poison-gas researchers predict they eventually will cease to be a war threat.

More:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/



Originally posted by JimJimElf
Lets look at Kerry's war record that he is so found of. Kerry is a war criminal (According to the Geneva Conventions). He has even admitted to it. So for him to say anything about Bush needing to step down for what happened with the prisoner abuse scandles is just ludicris. Bush had nothing to do with it.

I think we've either known someone who was sent to Vietnam, or have seen enough movies on the subject to know that it was absolute hell. During that war in particular, I think you would be hard pressed to find many soldiers who did not commit war crimes of some fashion.

However, I was unable to find anything where he mentions the need for Bush to step down due to the prisoner torture scandles. I believe you may be thinking of Ralph Nader on that one.

Here's what Kerry said... and seems very similar to the current situation really:

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

-- John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971



Originally posted by JimJimElf
Kerry even voted against a bill that would give soldiers body armour and things that they need to fight this war.


For the record, the body-armor money amounted to just over 1/3 of 1 percent of the $87 billion supplemental bill that Kerry opposed.

More:
http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155



Originally posted by JimJimElf
Kerry has contradicted himself so many times that who knows what he stands for. Apparantly nothing.

- Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
- Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
- Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
- Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
- Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
- Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
- Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
- Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
- Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
- Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
- Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits
- Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.
- Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
- Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
- Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will
- Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.
- Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote
- Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.
- Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.

More:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263



Originally posted by JimJimElf
Well I could go on and on but I won't. Just know that I am in the military and I support my Comander in Chief 100% and it will be a sad day if Bush loses the election to someone like Kerry.

A true patriot should always ask "is this leader doing what is best for the country?".

However, I'm glad to hear that you'll give 100% of your support to the Commander in Cheif when it's Kerry.


More:
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/provocations16.htm

Originally posted by I, Claudius
Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Here's a few hundred thousand more:

Who do the troops support? Overwhelmingly President Bush.

Let's see the polls. Let's see the surveys. (You and I are both on record as not trusting polls, but this is a pretty sweeping statement to make without proof.)



A bipartisan poll published by Business Week in December showed approval for the president at a mere 36 percent among soldiers, their families and veterans.

More:
http://www.war-times.org/issues/15art1.html




Here's a collection of poll numbers (general populace) from a number of sources:

President Bush: Job Ratings
All data are from nationwide surveys of Americans 18 & older.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Originally posted by JasonHamilton
You REALLY need to read up on Kerry before you start holding him up as an example.

I don't feel any compelling need to defend Kerry, first of all. But I do feel compelled to point out that Kerry wasn't drafted - he enlisted in the Navy, and volunteered to go to Vietnam. In addition to three Purple Hearts, he was awarded a silver star and a bronze star - the latter for saving a guy's life during a firefight. The guy still campaigns for Kerry.

Bush, on the other hand, weasled out of Vietnam by joining the National Guard, training on an obsolete jet, and sitting on his ass in Alabama reading magazines while Kerry schlepped around in the Mekong Delta. I suspect it wasn't a picnic, and I don't blame Kerry for wanting to get out. But he put in the time, he still carries shrapnel, and if you don't think he deserved those medals, take it up with the fucking Navy.

I don't know why you people keep bringing up Kerry's war record, given the war record of your own candidate. Speaking of which - Kerry's military records are available on his website. Go read 'em.

Originally posted by I, Claudius
I don't know why you people keep bringing up Kerry's war record, given the war record of your own candidate. Speaking of which - Kerry's military records are available on his website. Go read 'em.

I actually could care less about what the candidates did 30 years ago. The point I was making is that Kerry makes every attempt possible to bring up Vietnam, when the details behind his serving was anything but upstanding.

I found a site with some interesting info on it: http://www.wintersoldier.com Make sure to read the key points.

A fairly unrelated article, but it is amusing: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/31/225546.shtml

Originally posted by JasonHamilton
I actually could care less about what the candidates did 30 years ago. The point I was making is that Kerry makes every attempt possible to bring up Vietnam, when the details behind his serving was anything but upstanding.

The guy earned five medals in Vietnam, comported himself bravely (according to the Navy, at any rate), and when he saw a chance to get out, he took it. You stop just short of calling Kerry a coward, a claim the facts don't support.

Kerry came back from the war, and based on what he had seen and experienced, he spoke out against it. So did a lot of other people. Today, even Robert MacNamara admits it was a big fat mistake. (So does Cal Thomas, for that matter.) You won't find many people who will argue that we were justified in sending 58,000 Americans to their deaths in Vietnam. It was Kerry's right as an American to protest - doubly so, because he put his ass on the line for the privilege.

He enlisted. He went to Vietnam. He served his country. He was decorated for his service five times. Shit on the guy all you want, but those are the facts.

Originally posted by I, Claudius
[B]The guy earned five medals in Vietnam, comported himself bravely (according to the Navy, at any rate), and when he saw a chance to get out, he took it. You stop just short of calling Kerry a coward, a claim the facts don't support.

Insisting on a purple hearts for minor cuts don't meet my standards for bravery. Especially so when self inflicted.

Kerry came back from the war, and based on what he had seen and experienced, he spoke out against it. So did a lot of other people.

He lied about what went on in Vietnam. He claimed many things that didn't happen. Read about Kerry + VVAW: http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Keys


It was Kerry's right as an American to protest - doubly so, because he put his ass on the line for the privilege.
I think Vietnam was a mistake too, but I wouldn't lie about it, or try to label my fellow vets as racists, rapists, and war criminals.

Originally posted by JasonHamilton
Insisting on a purple hearts for minor cuts don't meet my standards for bravery. Especially so when self inflicted.

He lied about what went on in Vietnam. He claimed many things that didn't happen. Read about Kerry + VVAW: http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Keys

Bullshit from dubious sources that are hardly disinterested. The usually reliable (and impartial) Snopes.com dismisses this as a Republican urban legend:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

Originally posted by I, Claudius
Bullshit from dubious sources that are hardly disinterested. The usually reliable (and impartial) Snopes.com dismisses this as a Republican urban legend:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

I'm glad you brought the snopes url up, and think so highly of them, because Snopes was actually one of my sources. I read it, you should have read it too, because it backs up what I was saying.

I'll quote from the Snopes section of the article:
First purple heart:
The "stinging piece of heat" Kerry felt in his arm had been caused by a piece of shrapnel, a wound for which he was awarded a Purple Heart. The injury was not serious — Brinkley notes that Kerry went on a regular Swift boat patrol the next day with a bandage on his arm

Second purple heart:
Kerry felt a piece of hot shrapnel bore into his left leg. With blood running down the deck, the Swift managed to make an otherwise uneventful exit into the Gulf of Thailand, where they rendezvoused with a Coast Guard cutter. The injury Kerry suffered in that action earned his his second Purple Heart.
Brinkley noted that, as in the previous case, "Kerry's wound was not serious enough to require time off from duty."

And as far as his third... .if you look up my old post, you'll see I quoted this directly from snopes:
Kerry had been wounded three times and received three Purple Hearts. Asked about the severity of the wounds, Kerry said that one of them cost him about two days of service, and that the other two did not interrupt his duty. "Walking wounded," as Kerry put it. A shrapnel wound in his left arm gave Kerry pain for years. Kerry declined a request from the Globe to sign a waiver authorizing the release of military documents that are covered under the Privacy Act and that might shed more light on the extent of the treatment Kerry needed as a result of the wounds.

Anyway, here's an article about Kerry that better says what I was talking about in my previous post:

Imagine a professional athlete, with a short successful career, leaving the team and then falsely bad-mouthing it. Imagine someone like Alex Rodriguez or Ken Griffey, getting the numbers they got, at the end of their contract going before the baseball commissioner's board and telling lie after lie:

"The team all took performance-enhancing drugs. We all cheated and accepted bribes from bookies to throw games. I myself took part in these illegal practices."

Not only this, but he travels across the country telling people the same stories. He even returns his awards to the MLB office.

Remember, he knows he's not telling the truth, his team-mates know he's not telling the truth: the only people with doubts are the MLB, the fans, and the media.

As a result of his widely-believed fabrications, his teammates are spit on everywhere they go, and the fame that was once theirs is lost. Advertising contracts disappear. No matter what they say or how much they protest, the lie is believed. Many lives and reputations are ruined.

Decades later, Cooperstown Baseball Hall of Fame is set to choose a new baseball commissioner. In the running is our liar from long ago: his main claim to fame is his great record. He was named MVP several times, even though his career was very short. He had high RBIs, great batting average, and was in the All-Stars. In his office rows of trophies sit... despite his having returned them. We find out he returned someone else's.

His former teammates are furious. They know that the lies he told ruined their chances for happiness during the awful years that his stories were repeated and became permanently engraved in the public consciousness. But his athletic record is repeated incessantly; the lies are glossed over, in fact they are twisted into evidence to the power of his conscience! He is referred to not only as a baseball hero but a man of intergrity who fought against baseball excesses. The lives he ruined are forgotten, as is the fact that, if the stories of cheating were true, he took part in it.

So his teammates get together to denounce him, to strongly condemn his potential appointment. This is ignored by the press as a conspiracy engineered by his rivals for the job... and who can trust them, since they were cheaters, and never had stats as good as the whistleblower?

---------

This is what is happening now, with candidate John Kerry. Upon his return to the USA after a tour of duty opposing the North Vietnamese alongside the South Vietnamese, who we later abandoned, he called his fellow soldiers war criminals. He reported to Congress that U.S. soldiers had "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."

He knew he was telling lies, and his fellow combatants also knew. They came home to a suspicious public unable to cheer them or thank them, because his lies had convinced Americans that their returning vets might be criminals and fiends.
The veterans' wounds may never heal. Many lives were ruined as a direct result of John Kerry's false testimony. And now, he presumes to emphasize his service, ignoring the dishonor he heaped on his brothers in arms and himself. He also wants us to ignore the very distinct possibility that, by swaying public opinion against achieving victory over the Viet Cong, he helped to create millions of South Vietnamese refugees:

Veterans, Vietnamese unite to oppose Kerry

Dan Tran is president of the Vietnam Human Rights Project and a member of Vietnamese Americans Against John Kerry. "John Kerry aided and abetted the communist government in Hanoi and has hindered any human rights progress in Vietnam," Tran said

"This photograph's unquestionable significance lies in its placement in the American protestors' section of the War Crimes Museum in Saigon. The Vietnamese communists clearly recognize John Kerry's contributions to their victory. This find can be compared to the discovery of a painting of Neville Chamberlain hanging in a place of honor in Hitler's Eagle's Nest in 1945."

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040531140357545

I did read the Snopes article. If you had bothered to read the whole thing closely, you might have seen this part, which undercuts your contention that this was something unique to Kerry:

'"It was not at all unusual that a Swift boat crew member might be wounded more than once in a relatively short period of time, or that injuries meriting the award of a Purple Heart might not be serious enough to require time off from duty. According to a Boston Globe overview of John Kerry's Vietnam experience:

Under [Navy Admiral Elmo] Zumwalt's command, swift boats would aggressively engage the enemy. Zumwalt, who died in 2000, calculated in his autobiography that these men under his command had a 75 percent chance of being killed or wounded during a typical year.

"There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts — from shrapnel, some of those might have been M-40 grenades," said George Elliott, Kerry's commanding officer. "The Purple Hearts were coming down in boxes. Kerry, he had three Purple Hearts. None of them took him off duty. Not to belittle it, that was more the rule than the exception."'

The Snopes piece debunks your contention that he got the medals under dubious circumstances. It further points out that he was awarded one of his medals for saving a boat and its crew. Other soldiers present have corroborated this.

(This all begs the question of why a guy who volunteered for duty in Vietnam would fake a wound to get out of it.)

As I said earlier, if you've got a problem with Kerry's medals, take it up with the Navy.

I'd like you to point out where I said anything about "dubious circumstances".

At any rate, if you take Kerry at face value, he claimed to have participated in war crimes, and didn't say anything about it for years until it benefited his anti-war campaigns. If you don't, then he's a lier who pointed fingers at the innocent. It's more likely the latter since "investigators were unable to confirm any of the reported atrocities, and in fact discovered that a number of the witnesses had never been in Vietnam, had never been in combat, or were imposters who had assumed the identity of real veterans."

Originally posted by JasonHamilton
I'd like you to point out where I said anything about "dubious circumstances".


You claim he "insisted" on Purple Hearts for scratches, and that at least one of his wounds was self-inflicted. I'd say that qualifies as "dubious," if true.

I, Claudius: So... do you think you're closer to convincing me, or if I'm closer to convincing you? :)

This whole thread is about discrediting Kerry and selling the idea that he got his medals under false pretenses - so I'm not sure why you should have taken umbrage at "dubious circumstances." I can't say for sure all of it is crap, but most of it is - including a lot of the "facts" you've been serving up. I don't know whether you're a dupe, or actively malicious, but it's not about convincing you. It's about insisting on facts, not lies, and running this sort of scurrilous bullshit to ground. Reasonable people will read this thread and come to their own conclusions. I direct you to my current sig.

Having watched several Kerry TV ads, I assure you that it's being dished up on all sides. That is the game of politics. I disagree with the media claiming Bush is going all out with his Ads though, I've seen about a dozen ads from both camps and don't feel that Bush's ads are nearly as bad as they're made out to be.

As many sites as I can list to show my POV, I'm sure you can do the same.

Judging by the previous presidential election, it would appear that there is no consensus on the topic.

Originally posted by I, Claudius
This whole thread is about discrediting Kerry and selling the idea that he got his medals under false pretenses -

This thread is about the politician John Kerry and his record from the Vietnam War until now. Its about his flip-flops on issues, it’s about his pro-war/anti-war stance on EVERY war. It is about his disputes with the labor unions in Massachusetts. It is about his SUV and about his environmental and ecological short falls. It is about his unrealistic energy policy. And it is about his foreign policy that in the last month has mirrored that of George W. Bush.

Make no mistake, this is about John Kerry the candidate and where he stands. This is about stating the facts about the history of the democratic candidate for the office of the Presidency of the United States of America. We don't have to discredit him, he does it to himself.

Originally posted by Gigolo Jason
This thread is about the politician John Kerry and his record from the Vietnam War until now. Its about his flip-flops on issues, it’s about his pro-war/anti-war stance on EVERY war. It is about his disputes with the labor unions in Massachusetts. It is about his SUV and about his environmental and ecological short falls. It is about his unrealistic energy policy. And it is about his foreign policy that in the last month has mirrored that of George W. Bush.

Make no mistake, this is about John Kerry the candidate and where he stands. This is about stating the facts about the history of the democratic candidate for the office of the Presidency of the United States of America. We don't have to discredit him, he does it to himself.

This thread has also mentioned the politician George Bush and his record as a non-participant of the Vietnam War. It's about his flip-flop lies on issues, it's about his Pro-war/Pro-Christian stance on EVERY war. It is about his beneficial influences with the big businesses (Haliburton) in Iraq which lead to them having huge contracts to "rebuild" Iraq. It is about his stance that the Environment and the Ozone layer means very little, since he still continues to support oil drilling/refineries in the northern sections of this world. It is about his unrealistic budge policy with this War, first it was 30 Billion, 60 billion, when will this stop? And it is about his foreign policy that in the last year has mirrored that of a dictator, hungry for power, using his influence on however he pleases.

Make no mistake, George Bush is not a GREAT President, nor is he a GREAT humanitarian. He will be a Texas, spoiled, rich boy that got to where he is because of his father. This is about stating the facts about the history of the Republican candidate for the re-election of the Presidency of the United States of America. We don't have to discredit him, he does it to himself.

Originally posted by JasonHamilton
Having watched several Kerry TV ads, I assure you that it's being dished up on all sides. That is the game of politics. I disagree with the media claiming Bush is going all out with his Ads though, I've seen about a dozen ads from both camps and don't feel that Bush's ads are nearly as bad as they're made out to be.

Once again... lets stick to facts please:

To date, President Bush’s re-election campaign has run 49,050 negative television and radio ads in the top 100 broadcast markets – 75 percent of the campaign’s total ads. Since the advent of broadcast political advertising, no incumbent President before Bush has ever run so many ads attacking his opponent (by comparison Kerry’s campaign has run 13,336 negative ads – 27 percent of his total broadcast campaign).

Bush’s negative barrage destroys the previous record of incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson’s campaign against Barry Goldwater by an astounding 457 percent!

And, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, three-quarters of the Bush attacks against Kerry are either dead wrong or highly misleading.

More:
References cited earlier in this thread.

Originally posted by o0o0o
Once again... lets stick to facts please:

To date, President Bush’s re-election campaign has run 49,050 negative television and radio ads in the top 100 broadcast markets – 75 percent of the campaign’s total ads. Since the advent of broadcast political advertising, no incumbent President before Bush has ever run so many ads attacking his opponent (by comparison Kerry’s campaign has run 13,336 negative ads – 27 percent of his total broadcast campaign).

Yes, "facts" are useful for discussion. Lets go over some. While your statement is factual, it is only a half truth. Here's a better overview of the ad campaign:

The Bush-Cheney campaign has produced more negative TV ads than the campaign of Sen. John Kerry and is devoting more of its budget to airing them than Kerry is committing to his negative ads, a USA TODAY analysis shows.
But spending by independent, anti-Bush organizations has made up the difference. The $30 million those groups devoted to negative, anti-Bush ads has meant the amount of money spent on attacks aimed at each candidates is about the same.

Looking at ads produced by the two presidential campaigns and at information collected by an independent, ad-monitoring service and released by the campaigns, USA TODAY found that at least $45 million, nearly two-thirds of the $70.5 million spent so far by the Bush-Cheney campaign, has been to air its seven negative ads.

Kerry's spending on his five negative ads can't be traced as thoroughly because three have aired almost solely on cable channels, where spending isn't tracked. But it is known that Kerry has spent $25 million, 56% of the $44.5 million he has spent so far, to air two positive, biographical ads about himself. So as a percentage of ad spending, the amount he has devoted to negative ads is smaller than the Bush campaign's.

If polls continue to show the Bush-Kerry race even, the trends set so far in the two campaigns' ad efforts will probably continue, political scientists and admakers predict. That means, they say, the Bush-Cheney campaign's ad effort will remain on average more negative than Kerry's.

"I would expect Bush's 'positive' percentage (of ads) to go up some and Kerry's 'negative' percentage to rise a bit," says William Benoit, a University of Missouri-Columbia communications professor who studies political ads. "But Kerry's only likely to go really negative if he gets well behind in the polls."

USA TODAY reviewed the major ads released by the campaigns since March 1, after Kerry clinched the Democratic presidential nomination and the general campaign began. The review covered 13 Bush-Cheney ads and 10 Kerry ads. It did not include ads that have aired in only a few states, including a Spanish-language ad released by the Bush-Cheney campaign last week. Independent research on ad spending and the ads' contents were also studied.

Negative ads were defined as ads that are "as much or more about your opponent than you."

Among USA TODAY's findings:

• Kerry is referred to by name or indirectly 40 times in Bush's ads. "That's no accident, and they're not saying nice things" about Kerry as the Bush-Cheney campaign tries to define him in voters' minds, says Linda Kaplan Thaler, CEO of the Kaplan Thaler Group. Her admaking company's clients include the AFLAC insurance company. Bush is referred to 14 times in Kerry's ads.

Bush's aides have said repeatedly that their campaign's ads are not "negative" but instead "comparative." Kerry's aides have said repeatedly that the Democrat's ads are designed more to tell voters about Kerry than to strike at Bush.

• According to data collected by TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group and obtained by USA TODAY, the Bush-Cheney campaign has spent about $56.7 million so far to air ads on TV stations in 100 markets. Nearly all those stations are in states that both campaigns believe they have a chance to win.

Of that $56.7 million, TMI/CMAG's research shows 63% — $36 million — has been spent to air the seven negative ads.

Last week, the campaign said it would continue running an ad called "Doublespeak," which charges that Kerry has "waffled" on major issues, for another two weeks. The Associated Press reported that the extended "ad buy," or purchase of advertising time, would cost $9 million. That brought the campaign's spending on negative ads to $45 million.

Data gathered by TMI/CMAG show Kerry has spent at least $9 million — 20% of his ad buys so far — to air two of his five negative ads. Spending on the other three is not available because they have aired on cable networks that TMI/CMAG does not track.

• Nearly half the statements in Bush's TV campaign ads are attacks aimed at Kerry, University of Missouri-Columbia researchers say. That compares with the 19% of statements in Kerry's ads that are attacks aimed at Bush, they say.

Kerry's ads haven't been as negative as Bush's in part because the senator needs to introduce himself to many voters, communications and political-science researchers say. "When you're defining yourself, not the other person, you're going to be spending more time on positive things than you are on negatives," says Christine Williams, political science professor at Bentley College in Waltham, Mass.

Also, anti-Bush organizations such as The Media Fund and MoveOn.org Voter Fund have been running the most aggressive ads of the campaign so far, giving Kerry less of a need to go on the offensive. The Missouri researchers estimate 84% of the statements in those groups' ads have been attacks aimed at Bush. Those organizations have spent at least $30 million so far this year on TV ads. Together with Kerry's negative ads, then, more than $40 million has certainly been spent on anti-Bush ads so far — close to Bush's total spending on negative ads.

JasonHamilton, Just wondering, regardless of how "Bad" John Kerry is about his medals, and voting history... are you satisfied that George Bush has done a splendid job with how he has run the government to date? Are you happy with how this 'war' with Iraq was because he first used the excuse of "WMD", then later it's about something different... Liberating Iraq, Rebuilding democracy, etc etc.. not sure what the reason is now. Are you glad that our troops are still stationed there, even though they were promised to return much sooner? Are you happy that George Bush has pushed the issue of Osama Bin Laden to the back burner until this "Iraq" thing is dealt with... then maybe he will someday return to capturing Osama, the MAIN reason this was all started in the first place?

Aren't we suppose to vote for someone because of their history, instead of bashing the other candidate's history and saying... well since John Kerry did all this crap, I'm just going to vote for Bush and ignore what he has done in the last 3 years?

As I've said before, I am not 100% behind Bush. I strongly dislike what he's doing with the illegals in America. As far as the Iraqi situation, I don't pretend that I am privy to all the information that the President has at his disposal.

However I have yet to be given even a slight reason to like Kerry or what he stands for. In fact, look at Kerry's ads, he doesn't even know what he stands for.

I think Bush has handled 9/11 well, and I have a sneaking suspicion that Iraq is only the first step of many.

You know what they say about dealing with the Devil you know, than one you don't.

Here was a very good article I found today:
The incessant press and television coverage during the Vietnam War helped to turn Americans against it. The very same thing will undoubtedly happen with the war in the Middle East. If enough dead American names are read on ABC's Nightline, if enough prisoner maltreatment is uncovered and reported on, if the media continues to make the Islamist Jihadists the victims, if the anti-war protest marches and rallies continue to grow in number and continue to get extensive daily television coverage, and the Democrats continue to jump on all of this to bring down Bush, then the wearing-down effect will happen — Americans will slowly but surly start to forget why we are fighting in the first place and the general sentiment will be to "bring the troops home."


When that happens, watch for John Kerry (who up until the prison abuse story broke had been sounding moderate to almost hawkish in his campaign speeches concerning the war) to take a sudden, yet decidedly anti-war stance. He will proclaim that if elected he will end the war and "bring our young men and women home" and he will win. After he takes office he will make good on his promise and begin the extrication of our forces from the region — leaving the place to the terrorists in much the same way that South Vietnam was left to the North. When this happens we are done for. It will be exactly at that point in time when we will have lost the war to the Islamic Terrorists.

A bit off topic, but this is interesting news:

Law enforcement officials now suspect several of the California wildfires that have killed 18, consumed more than 718,000 acres and destroyed more than 2,400 homes in 10 days were deliberately set, increasing speculation there is a terror connection to the blazes. One man has been arrested so far, Dikran Armouchian, 23, of Pasadena. That makes a June 25 FBI memo to United States law enforcement agencies all the more startling. It revealed a senior al-Qaida detainee claimed to have developed a plan to start midsummer forest fires in the U.S. The Al Qaeda memo stated that the fire-terrorism could significantly damage the U.S. economy and would result in chaos once it was realized that the fires were terrorist acts! Al Qaeda is known to have planned to send three or four operatives to travel to the U.S. and set timed explosive devices in forests and grasslands.

Originally posted by Outlaws eXtreme
This thread has also mentioned the politician George Bush and his record as a non-participant of the Vietnam War.

I believe that everything that was brought up about Bush in this thread was because of neo-liberals such as yourself and O-boy. If you don't like your own topics of conversation then I don't know what to tell you.

I started this thread to specifically talk about the real John Kerry and who he is. It's not my fault that other have tried to rail road it (without much success) into a wider discussion.

Originally posted by Outlaws eXtreme
It's about his flip-flop lies on issues,

Really, Bush flip-flops on issues, that's a new one to me? Explain and give examples, such as I have done through out this entire thread on John Kerry's recorded flip-flops. Those aren't speculation, they are fact and have defined his senate carrear.

Originally posted by Outlaws eXtreme
It is about his beneficial influences with the big businesses

Explain to me how the Heinz Corporation isn't classified as big business? Kerry doesn't have to go far to find his special interest in big business, he just has to role over in the morning and look at his wife.

Originally posted by Outlaws eXtreme
It is about his stance that the Environment and the Ozone layer means very little, since he still continues to support oil drilling/refineries in the northern sections of this world.

I hate to be the one to open your eyes here, but our entire economy is based on oil as its primary source if energy. Domestic drilling and refineries are key to our way of life. The more drilling we do domestically the more oil revenue is kept in north America and not sent to the middle east, and the less dependent we are on foreign oil. Sorry to tell you this, but we can't wave a magic wand and "invent" our way out of this situation anytime soon. Those alternative solutions are decades, if not half a century away.

Originally posted by Outlaws eXtreme
It is about his unrealistic budge policy with this War, first it was 30 Billion, 60 billion, when will this stop? And it is about his foreign policy that in the last year has mirrored that of a dictator, hungry for power, using his influence on however he pleases.

War costs money. John Kerry campained two administrations (Clinton and Bush) for this war to happen. He has supported it from the beginning. The quotes and proof are in this thread on previous pages.

As for the foriegn policy, Kerry has addopted the administrations, I will let that speak for itself.

Originally posted by Outlaws eXtreme
This is about stating the facts about the history of the Republican candidate for the re-election of the Presidency of the United States of America. We don't have to discredit him, he does it to himself.

You have just contradicted yourself in your own post. First you state that Bush has been brought into this thread misteriously by others in here and not by yourself, and then you go off and state that you in fact have brought him up.

This thread is about John Kerry, it's stated in the topic line. Its about the truth of his candidacy and where he stands on the issues.

Ummm:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by o0o0o

- Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
- Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
- Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
- Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
- Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
- Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
- Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
- Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
- Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
- Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
- Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits
- Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.
- Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
- Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
- Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will
- Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.
- Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote
- Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.
- Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.

More:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263

Who do the troops support? Overwhelmingly President Bush.


Originally posted by I, Claudius
Let's see the polls. Let's see the surveys. (You and I are both on record as not trusting polls, but this is a pretty sweeping statement to make without proof.)
Sorry I'm late, it's been a busy week.
About 30 percent of military members polled said they had deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom, but there were no significant differences in opinions about Iraq between those who deployed for the war and those who didn’t.

•The military group is solidly in Bush’s corner, supporting the president more strongly than the nation as a whole. Two-thirds of respondents said they approved of the president’s job performance. Similar polls of the public before Saddam’s capture found Bush’s approval rating hovering around 50 percent.

One likely factor in that support: Military members are much more likely to identify themselves as Republicans. Recent polls show about one-third of Americans consider themselves Republicans, but 57 percent of those surveyed by Military Times identified with the GOP.

Interesting survey, I will take back the adverb "overwhelmingly," but the military clearly support Bush.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2513919.php

So do you think the Democrats will try to prevent the votes of military personnel from being counted again this election? Or just in the states where it is a close race? That was one of the most sickening political moves I have ever seen. And that is part of the reason more military than nonmilitary are Republicans in 2004.

Kerry voted in 2002 to support military action as an option against Iraq. He voted against an $87 billion supplemental spending bill late last year. That bill he voted against did everything from provide hazard pay for our troops in Iraq to body armor for our troops in Iraq.

WHAT A PATRIOTIC AMERICAN??? Remember everyone, just because you served proudly in a war 35 years ago, doesn't mean you're a Patriotic American like Kerry claims to be. Obviously, he doesn't even support our current Armed Services. Patriotic Americans don't:

1. Flaunt their service record so shamelessly, especially, when he was not proud to serve in Vietnam in the first place. A real soldier would let his accomplishments speak for themselves---It's called HUMILITY! Yes, you should mention your past service for your country. We just don't want to hear it mentioned everyday, for every hour, for political gain.

For example, Senator John McCain doesn't go around telling the world about how he was captured and tortured by the enemy during wartime.

2. Vote against bills that would aid and protect the lives of American Soldiers, who are protecting the very freedom we engulf ourselves in every day (as stated above).

3. Change their perspective on Significant Political Issues just to gain new votes. For example, in 1998, when President Clinton was considering military steps against Iraq, Kerry strenuously argued for action, with or without allies. Four years later, Kerry voted for a resolution authorizing invasion but criticized Mr. Bush for not recruiting allies.

4. Vote, as Senator, to slash $2.6 Billion from Intelligence Funding while serving as a Member of Senate Intel Committee.

5. Become a much-celebrated organizer for Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), one of America's most radical pro-communist groups. Why not, let's reincarnate Communist Russia in the Good Old U.S.A.???

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
[b]Who do the troops support? Overwhelmingly President Bush.


Once again... not so.


A bipartisan poll published by Business Week in December showed approval for the president at a mere 36 percent among soldiers, their families and veterans.

More:
http://www.war-times.org/issues/15art1.html



Here's a collection of poll numbers (general populace) from a number of sources:

President Bush: Job Ratings
All data are from nationwide surveys of Americans 18 & older.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Originally posted by o0o0o
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
[b]Who do the troops support? Overwhelmingly President Bush.


Once again... not so.


A bipartisan poll published by Business Week in December showed approval for the president at a mere 36 percent among soldiers, their families and veterans.

More:
http://www.war-times.org/issues/15art1.html



that source isn't a source... it just says the same thing you said.. no numbers no proof.. and the mission statement for some reason doesn't lend me to think that this is a reliable site.

Originally posted by Kano
Kerry voted in 2002 to support military action as an option against Iraq. He voted against an $87 billion supplemental spending bill late last year. That bill he voted against did everything from provide hazard pay for our troops in Iraq to body armor for our troops in Iraq.



I think this is a bit unfair to Kerry. While he voted against a specific form of this bill, he was not opposed to sending 87 billion to Iraq. He was simply opposed to the specific funding issues of this bill.

It doesn't mean he didn't support the troops.

Bush also threatened to veto the bill, if 10 billion was in the form of a loan. Would that have meant he didn't support the troops? Of course not.


This strikes me as another example of the Bush team playing fast and loose with the facts in an attempt to smear Kerry. They must think that people don't know enough about the legislative process to call them on their distortions.


More:
http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion/

I'd like to know why a loan wasn't acceptable.

I don't like the idea of footing the bill.

Originally posted by Kaliken
that source isn't a source... it just says the same thing you said.. no numbers no proof.. and the mission statement for some reason doesn't lend me to think that this is a reliable site.


You know what, you may be right on that.

I can't find a conrete poll of soldiers regarding their primary choice of candidates. I'll see if I can find anything more on this, as I was trying to counter the conjecture from Speed-ER doc.


However, the second link does provide solid information from a sample of the general population, and Bush's approval rating hasn't been stellar... infact it's at the lowest levels of his presidency:

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Originally posted by JasonHamilton
I'd like to know why a loan wasn't acceptable.

I don't like the idea of footing the bill.



The House also backed Senate measures for expanding health care for veterans and troops that Bush opposed.


http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2003/10/21/rtr1117422.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/21/sprj.irq.congress.iraq.ap/



Also, lets not forget:

Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: “Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very -- an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.” [Source: White House Press Briefing, 2/18/03]



Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: “This is not Afghanistan…When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. And it’s obvious, it’s oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year…$10, $15, even $18 billion…this is not a broke country.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]



Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]



Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “If you [Source: worry about just] the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan…Iraq has oil. They have financial resources.” [Source: Fortune Magazine, Fall 2002]



State Department Official Alan Larson: “On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the responsibilities. Among the sources of revenue available are $1.7 billion in invested Iraqi assets, the found assets in Iraq…and unallocated oil-for-food money that will be deposited in the development fund.” [Source: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Iraq Stabilization, 06/04/03]



Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense…[Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it. [Source: Senate Appropriations Hearing, 3/27/03]

Originally posted by o0o0o
You know what, you may be right on that.

I can't find a conrete poll of soldiers regarding their primary choice of candidates. I'll see if I can find anything more on this, as I was trying to counter the conjecture from Speed-ER doc.
OoOoOoOoMyGod you are dense. First you find some flaky anti-war group and present their biased ultramegaliberal tripe as if it were some kind of rational talking point, then you disregard my POLL OF THE MILITARY as conjecture.

Say goodbye to your credibility. Go back to the moveon.org forum.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
OoOoOoOoMyGod you are dense. First you find some flaky anti-war group and present their biased ultramegaliberal tripe as if it were some kind of rational talking point, then you disregard my POLL OF THE MILITARY as conjecture.

Say goodbye to your credibility. Go back to the moveon.org forum.


Ok, are you really resorting to name calling? Weak.

... and don't even try starting a straw man argument here, please. I quoted a source that quoted Business Week, instead of quoting business week directly. Conversely, a large portion of the posts attacking Kerry don't even cite sources. I would hope to hear a similar admission of mistake and apology for using equally partisan sources, such as the direct RNC banter that has already been heavily expunged in this thread.


I was obviously not refering to the poll when I spoke of conjecture. As you have acknowledged, there hasn't been any truely "overwhelming" evidence that the military "overwhelmingly" wants Bush to be re-elected. (or "clearly" for that matter)

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Interesting survey, I will take back the adverb "overwhelmingly," but the military clearly support Bush.



Infact, extend their tour of duty again, and I really don't see how the support for Bush's re-election is going to grow stronger.






Anyway, from the "Army Times" (questionably scientific) survey:


On Nov. 3, we mailed questionnaires to 3,500 people drawn at random from our subscription list. Recipients were asked to mail their answers to an independent firm that machine-tabulated the results, a process that guaranteed anonymity. We stopped processing incoming questionnaires Dec. 17.


2003 Military Times poll

Military backs Bush more than civilians do — but not by much

The poll found solid support for the president’s Iraq policy. Fifty-six percent of those in the Military Times Poll approved of Bush’s handling of Iraq.

Still, those numbers are not much higher than support in the United States as a whole. Civilian polls before Saddam’s capture showed about half of Americans backing Bush’s Iraq policies. Support for Bush has risen significantly in public opinion polls conducted after the dictator’s arrest.

“Fifty-six percent is not very high in terms of support,” said Andrew Bacevich, a a professor of international relations at Boston University and a retired Army officer. “There is plenty of reason to be skeptical of the handling of Iraq on the part of the people who are paying the price.”

The Army, which has borne the heaviest burden in Iraq in terms of workload and casualties, also is less approving than the rest of the military: 52 percent approved of Bush’s Iraq policy, while about one in four opposed it.

Respondents to the Military Times Poll were nearly evenly split between officers and enlisted troops, and tended to be more career-oriented than their services as a whole. The sample group also included fewer women and minorities than the military population, and it slightly over-represents Army troops.

About 72 percent of the 3,500 turned out to be on active duty, which is about 2,500 service members. Those were the only responses tabulated. Of those 2,500, 933 filled out the questionnaires, a 36 percent response rate. That yields a margin of error of 3.3 percent.

Those polled differ from the military as a whole in important ways. They tended to be older, higher in rank and longer in the service than the overall military. Nonetheless, it is perhaps the most representative sample possible because of the inherent challenges in polling service men and women, according to polling experts and military sociologists.

“It’s almost impossible to get a perfectly representative sample,” said David Moore, senior analyst at the Gallup Organization, perhaps the nation’s most prestigious polling firm.

I agree with your interpretation of the limitations of the Army Times survey, and it shows you have a scientific background. Nice arguments, you and Claude must be related. Can you find the original Business Week survey? And what WERE you referring to about the conjecture? The original statement? I admit it was, but I did back it up with evidence.

I wasn't name-calling, btw, just trying to be funny. Sorry. :)

More proof? :D

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
I agree with your interpretation of the limitations of the Army Times survey, and it shows you have a scientific background. Nice arguments, you and Claude must be related. Can you find the original Business Week survey? And what WERE you referring to about the conjecture? The original statement? I admit it was, but I did back it up with evidence.

I wasn't name-calling, btw, just trying to be funny. Sorry. :)


All good. I definitely appreciate the candor. It's refreshing.

No, I haven't been able to find the business week survey, which is why I agreed that the source was indeed questionable. ...and I did miss your poll the first time around.


Anyway, I hope we're all able to continue to treat the reasons for and against each candidate with fairness and cite sources for our facts. It makes things much more fun that way.

Thought I would bring this back from the dead for everyone's election amusement.

As of now (8:17 Central time), Kerry is loosing Florida and Ohio.

He can not win without the Electoral College votes from one of these two states.

According to AP, John Kerry was asked if he owned an SUV. He said he didn't. Turns out his wife drives a Chevy Suburban. "The family has it. I don't have it,'' he said.

Meanwhile, Charles Krauthammer writes about Kerry's bizarre Meet the Press comments on Iraq. Kerry said: "If I'm president, I will not only personally go to the U.N., I will go to other capitals. Within weeks of being inaugurated, I will return to the U.N. and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the world." A man who says such things will never be President.

John Kerry has consistantly proven he is a typical politician and a potentially disasterous leader. He has on several occations and topics controdicted himself and shown he has no real backbone. For example he is an apparent practicing Catholic that supports gay unions and pro choice, claiming seperation between church and state. He is simply going after avaliable markets or votes. He will sell out his personal convictions for a single vote. How can a man that is not willing to defend his most sacred beliefs be entrusted to defend our country.

And please do not give me the Vietnam B.S. He was there for 4 months as a glory seeker and after returning home spit in his countries face by refusing the honors which he had recieved supposedly trying to defend her. John Kerry is concerned about John Kerry. He comes across as a prideful, arrogant, directionless man with no personal integrity or original conviction on anything.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

That whole post was pretty dumb. He was asked if HE drives an SUV, no he doesn't, if his wife has an SUV what the f*ck does that matter?

And the thing about the U.N is EXACTLY what we need to do, what Bush did fucked up the whole world by showing that the U.N holds no weight and he was completely out of line.

Seperation of church in state is in the constitution, he could be Amish, it doesn't mean he stop the country from watching T.V's and having running water..

Your full of B.S, I let all your other posts go but your pretty damn ignorant with this one. I'm 18 and I have better sense than you.

And the thing about the U.N is EXACTLY what we need to do, what Bush did fucked up the whole world by showing that the U.N holds no weight and he was completely out of line.




so the UN actually holding no weight isnt the problem as you see it? the problem is Bush showing that it doesnt?

sorry, what I meant was no weight over the U.S which means it can do whatever it wants..

The truth about those Massachusetts city slickers hurts doesn't it.

First Teddy then.........

JOHN KERRY

hahahahaha

By the way VelociRedBeast, Florida is going for Bush.

I don't mind another 4 years if Bush wins it just means someone new in 08, I just got angry about the stuff you said.

I just got angry about the stuff you said.

Tuff luck,

The truth hurts doesn't it?