John Kerry

[MennoniteHobbit]

he was fixing your picture link, it was broken. you're kinda mistrusting aren't you?

 

Well when he fixes links he usually adds a little note, so I was just making sure...

 

I feel like quoting Lewis Black, because he is very right on this point...

 

"when are we going to learn, if you're against a war...it doesn't mean you are FOR the other SIDE..."

 

Indirectly it is... the end result is usually the same.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

Actually, no one ever said questioning authority is un-American. What is un-American though is going with the anybody-but-Bush theme, even thinking of letting the 9/11 commission do something about Iraq, etc. What is unpatriotic is saying "hey let's unseat this f***er President for no good reason!"

 

But the fact of the matter remains that 1) Bush is an idiot. 2) He has surrounded himself with fascist advisors. 3) Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. These would be three very powerful arguments against Bush and, since this is a binary choice, for Kerry. Therefore the 'anything but Bush theme' argument is a fallacity.

 

And as for the quote, you probably know already, but Heinz Kerry said all about that un-American, un-Pennsylvanian etc. traits. You can see her quote in my image. But when a Tribune reporter asked "what do you mean by un-American" Heinz Kerry responded with "I never said that (un-American). Why are you putting words in my mouth? ... Now shove it!"

 

You are referring to the reporter from the shabby so-called newspaper, which has been known to write virtually anything to discredit the Democratic Party? Lensbugs are a pain in the butt on general principles, but this was a particularily nasty example of the species. I can assure you that if such a moron had been sticking a mike up my face, I'd not have been so nice to him.

 

"If you're not with us [on the war on terror]" you're against us trying to prevent attacks, prevent/stop terrorism, and against our good cause. And that in itself is already un-patriotic. So being dubbed un-patriotic because of that reason isn't as blatant as you imply actually, if you read more of the context. Questioning authority to that extent (that can be related to not wanting to prevent further attacks and more) is un-patriotic.

 

Get yourself a reality check! Dubya and his Boyz been using this issue to: 1) Invade a soverign country for no reason save oil and old scores. 2) Pass laws that mandate an unprecedented invasion of privacy of the average citizen. 3) Set aside virtually every international convention on the subject of human rights. And for what? A few thousand dead, that's what. More people get killed every day on the road! In fact you're probably in greater risk of dying of lung cancer from car exhaust pollution than being killed by a terrorist. Much less an Islamic terrorist, considering that the vast, vast majority of the acts of terror comitted in the US are carried out by fascist Christian factions from the Deep South... But of course, these are Dubya's core voters, and he wouldn't want to alienate them, would he now? Disgusting, that's what it is.

[SkinWalker]

A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts. However, one of the veterans who appears in the ad has already recanted his principal accusation against Kerry, in an interview with the Boston Globe.

 

The ad includes the following dialog from the following "men:"

George Elliott: John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam.

Al French: He is lying about his record.

Louis Letson: I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury.

Van O'Dell: John Kerry lied to get his bronze star...I know, I was there, I saw what happened.

Jack Chenoweth: His account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day.

Admiral Hoffman: John Kerry has not been honest.

 

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" is a group formed March 23 after Kerry wrapped up the Democratic nomination and they are funded by a Houston home builder, Bob R. Perry, who has also given millions to the Republican party.

 

Several of the "men" in the quote above signed affidavits attesting to Kerry's alleged dishonesty, but one of those affidavits already has been recanted by the man who signed it, Lieutenant Commander George Elliott, who had been Kerry's commanding officer. Elliott was quoted by the Boston Globe Aug 6 as saying he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing the affidavit against Kerry.

Originally posted in the Boston Globe

George Elliott: It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here. . . . I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake. [...] I have chosen to believe the other men. I absolutely do not know first hand.

 

The most serious allegation in the ad is that Kerry received both the Bronze Star, his second-highest decoration, and his third purple heart, which allowed him to be sent home early, under false pretenses.

 

None of those in the attack ad by the Swift Boat group actually served on Kerry's boat. And their statements are contrary to the accounts of Kerry and those who served under him. Jim Rassmann was the Army Special Forces lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water. Rassmann has said all along that he was under sniper fire from both banks of the river when Kerry, wounded, helped him aboard. Rassmann is featured in an earlier Kerry ad, in fact, (see script at left) saying "he (Kerry) risked his life to save mine."

 

Senator John McCain (8/5/2004) has said, "I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam."

 

Bottom Line

 

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group is dishonest. They fabricated their information and contrived anecdotal accounts to tarnish Kerry's honor in public. That the fascist extremity of the conservative base is willing to go to such extremes says much about their integrity and honesty. That Bush condones such behavior, evident by his lack of condemnation of the ad, is indicative of his own fascist character.

 

Kerry's service record shines, yet Bush's appears to be that of a affluent draft-dodger. Kerry stepped up to the plate and volunteered for duty in Viet Nam. Bush hid out in a National Guard unit that he didn't even bother to show for training with.

 

References

 

Brinkley, Douglas (2004). Tour of Duty, New York:HarperCollins.

 

Fournier, Ron (8/5/04) "McCain Condemns Anti-Kerry Ad," Associated Press.

 

Kranish, Michael (8/6/04) “Veteran Retracts Criticism of Kerry,” The Boston Globe.

 

Wilgoren, Jodi (8/5/04)"Vietnam Veterans Buy Ads to Attack Kerry," The New York Times.

[SkinWalker]

In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal , Jim Rassmann -- the man Kerry rescued to win the Bronze Star -- says the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad was "launched by people without decency" who are "lying" and "should hang their heads in shame."

 

This is a quote from the article:

Rassmann: Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

 

When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.

 

"This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency," Rassmann said. "Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam."

 

Rather than scan my Wall Street Journal, I googled a link that has the quote on a political site:

 

http://www.etalkinghead.com/archives/rassmann-attacks-swift-boat-vets-2004-08-10.html

[PR-0927]

Man!! I would never ever vote for Bush (I can't right now...I'm only 14 years old).

 

I always wondered why people thought Kerry couldn't make up his mind. I didn't read all four pages...as that is a lot of debating, especially those really long posts!!

 

Bush has cause so many problems. It is just time for him to go.

 

I read some stuff on the first and last pages, and the Senate Chambers usually has long debates and long posts...I gotta be lazy!!

 

I just say that you guys should stop arguing, and just listen to SkinWalker, he seems more educated than the rest of you guys.

 

Just give up. Vote for Kerry. Bush is...not a good person. I'd rather use more offensive words...but, after seeing SkinWalker punish Pimpzilla...I'll let it go.

 

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Majin Revan

I just say that you guys should stop arguing, and just listen to SkinWalker, he seems more educated than the rest of you guys.

 

...put together

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

...put together

 

And then multiplied by some large number

[OB1 KNOB]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

"a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship" – The neo-conservative goal of dominating the House, Senate, Federal Judiciary, and Executive branch, doesn't smell of that? I won't pretend that the Democratic Party's goal is much different, but the Democratic Party (since FDR) hasn't demonstrated that it's policies are to limit civil rights and ignore the working class to the extent that the Republican Party has. The neo-cons have few of the traditional Republican goals like reduction of government (Reagan Conservatives were adamantly opposed to increasing the size of government), instead, their goal is power (Paul, 2003).

 

A dictatorship is characterized by a central leader who has absolute power and authority, especially with a more tyrannical nature. No matter which party they belong to, both are given their position of power by the people and likewise can have it taken away. I wouldn’t consider either party fascist based on that alone.

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

forcible suppression of the opposition – We see it overtly in foreign policy: strong arm tactics with the UN, authorizing torture tactics of "enemy combatants" (Gonzales, 2002), etc. But we also see it subtly in little manipulations of the press, policy, or even corporate levels: Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election - to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day. (60 Minutes, 2004)

 

I would characterize fascism, as I would other forms of government including democracy, as the approach the government takes domestically. Different approaches will be used when dealing with foreign policy and other nations, which means that many different approaches will be used for many different nations.

 

Forcible suppression of the opposition would include assassinating members of the other party, threatening to use force against them, etc…

 

That includes a militaristic approach towards suppressing the other party and any opposition of the government.

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control -…

 

…Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election - to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day.

 

That isn’t really an example of the private sector being controlled by the government. The government still doesn’t own the oil companies.

 

Saudi Arabia also lowered the prices during Carter’s election and Clinton’s election (both Democrats.)

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

belligerent nationalism – "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists. (Bush, 2002); and John Ashcroft (2001) citing that "those that oppose us [in creating the Patriot Act II] are providing aid and comfort to the enemy." "Aid and comfort to the enemy," coincidently, is the exact words that describe treason in the Constitution. The implication is clear: belligerent nationalism, dissent unwelcome and unpatriotic.

 

Belligerent implies more of a hostile approach. While both statements are out of there intended context and therefore subject to a greater degree of interpretation, they are both definitely strongly worded statements. I think the intent there is to get people to think about whose side they are really on.

 

Patriotism can easily be confused with nationalism if interpreted differently. They definitely aren’t taking a nationalistic approach to foreign policy in general. Any hostility is directed towards the terrorists themselves.

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

racism – Redistricting by the Republican dominated houses and senates of the U.S. as well as states like North Carolina, Calif., and Texas, raise some serious concerns about racism (Garrett & Slover, 2004). It may be incidental and/or accidental, but the fact remains that formerly democratic districts comprised of African American and Hispanic voters are being broken up and are finding themselves with Republican majorities. The process effectively breaks up less affluent communities and gives their newly created portions to the more affluent ones. The reasons why these communities had such strong Democratic voter bases to begin with is because they lacked the infrastructures that the rich communities obtained, such as city water and sewage obtained by the Oak Cliff area of Dallas, TX in the last few decades. Now their votes will pale in significance and the affluent neighborhoods can get their diverted funds back. At least that's the perception in D/FW.

 

Both parties redistrict when they are in power. It would appear to be one of the advantages of being in power. Without being familiar with the specific area, redistricting can be done for many different reasons. It would also be relevant to know how the districts became predominantly Democrat in the first place. They could originally been Republican and then redistricted to split up the Republican districts.

Racism need not necessarily apply. Perception can be relative.

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

militarism – hmmm... need I really go there?

 

While the Republican Party does stand for a strong, prepared military, it hasn’t been an aggressive stance targeted towards other countries or towards the general populace of America, i.e. ruling with force and threat.

 

They certainly haven’t been threatening to use the military against anyone in America who opposes the war in Iraq or even the war on terrorism for that matter.

 

The central characteristic of fascism is that of having a central leader who expresses and demonstrates the viewpoints that comprise fascism, and that isn’t the case at all. It seems like quite a bit of a stretch to incorporate the American Republicans in that group.

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

I was simply implying that conservatives are generally opposed to change and prefer the status quo, while liberals generally seek change for the sake of progress. I wasn't attempting to assign any right or wrong to either viewpoint. They both have their places. The neo-conservatives, however, do seek change and larger government, and I think that's important for everyone to take note of.

 

I think it should also be noted that “conservative” also represents a cautious approach that’s indicative of thought and foresight.

 

There is still a large stance toward decreasing governmental control within the Republican Party. Individuals who are Republicans may have differing intentions, and as such do not reflect the intentions and beliefs of others.

 

There really isn’t very much to comment on there, without listing any specific examples.

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Conservative can, and is, often used in a derogatory manner, however, not nearly to the degree that liberal is. I think you'll have to agree that "damn liberal" is used with far greater frequency than "damn conservative." Moreover, there are far more compound terms in use to increase it's derogatory nature than with conservative: i.e. "bleeding heart" and "liberal media."

 

I was just saying that neither term by itself is derogatory unless specifically implied in its usage. It will all depend on the specific individual using the word and how they say it. They still just represent two opposing viewpoints, similar to Republican and Democrat.

 

“Liberal Media” doesn’t imply anything negative, unless someone takes offense to the word itself. If the media source has a liberal slant, that would be an accurate description. Not all media has a liberal slant obviously, but if they do they shouldn’t really be ashamed of that term.

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Pat Robertson "hand-picked more than 30 Bush campaign leaders" (Jackson, 1997) for George H. Bush. One has to assume that many of the same connections exist with the Christian Coalition in George W. Bush's administration. Indeed, many of the Bush policies appear to be direct from the Pat Robertson "handbook" (if one existed) and rest on the same superstitious belief systems and pseudoscientific decisions.

 

If Bush bases policies on his religion, and Pat Robertson believes in the same religion, there policies will generally be similar, but that doesn’t mean Bush is basing any of his policies on Robertson’s opinions.

 

What I was saying was: Did Bush change any of his policies specifically to get money from any of those groups? Or Did those groups donate to Bush because he represents what they also stand for?

 

The former would be regarded as “being bought”. The latter would be merely a contribution.

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Likewise for his corporate connections to Haliburton, Enron, etc. Bush certainly had some harsh words to say about Kenneth Lay, but that didn't prevent him from accepting his money, advice and counsel prior to the energy companies fall from grace.

 

If I’m understanding right, you’re saying that Bush shouldn’t have conferred with Kenneth Lay, from Enron, before the information about the energy company’s fallacies were discovered. Wouldn’t you expect him not to condone such as activities after proof of their existence is released.

 

The large companies also conferred and donated to the Clinton Administration as well.

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

What he was implying then, and what he and his administration officials implied at later dates, was that there exists a dichotomy: either you support the administration or you are a traitor; that dissent is traitorous; that by not offering logistical and military support as a nation to the Iraqi invasion, your nation supports Al Qaeda. It was deceptive. It was a lie. His loyalties aren't to the American people, they're to the corporations and organizations that keep he and his kind in power.

 

It still looks more like he was talking about the war on terrorism and not his administration as a whole. People can disagree with him on his domestic policies and still support the war on terrorism because of its importance.

 

What specifically do loyalties to corporations and organizations have to do with that quote? He was elected to the Presidency by the American people. They keep him in power.

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Indeed. Which is why we should have kept our focus there and not on the Iraq conflict, which is where the neo-conservatives have had their sights set even before 9/11. If we would have put the time, effort, money and political capital (which we squandered) into the terrorist question and not wasted each on the Iraqi one, we could likely have affected change in both.

 

One of the reasons for the war was to prevent Saddam from becoming a greater threat.

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Diplomacy is what works in the Middle East, not strong-arm tactics. History has shown this to be true.

 

Diplomacy hasn’t been working there. There doesn’t even always appear to be a lot of diplomacy between themselves. For diplomacy to work, it tends to require that both sides are willing to cooperate and, when necessary, compromise.

 

The “weapons inspectors” sounds like an attempt at diplomacy, and that was going on for quite a while, because Hussein wasn’t cooperating. Diplomacy that doesn’t include consequences as a result of, or lack of, actions, won’t instill cooperation because they have no reason to cooperate. Following a lack of cooperation with forceful action is the threat that gives diplomacy validity. It did begin with diplomacy, but it ended in war.

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

It's not necessarily the quantity of people as it is the quality of them. These 26 people appear to have had access to position and knowledge that gives their allegations and opinions credibility. Like it or not, this will probably have an affect on the public opinion if the media picks it up now that the Reagan passing is out of the news.

 

I was just saying that over a time period of 20+ years, 26 people from the government and the military, and not necessarily Republican, isn’t a lot of people. That was specifically directed in response to ET Warriors statement about the quantity of the people.

 

I’d have to see more information about what evidence they were basing their statements on because that article only barely mentioned where they feel the deficiencies are. Like I said, the majority of the article was establishing that some of these people served under Republican Presidents, and that doesn’t automatically make them Republicans themselves.

 

Their previous and/or current status can give them credibility, but it doesn’t explicitly mean that there perceptions are entirely correct and impartial.

 

What about other people in the same current or previous positions who disagree with their opinion?

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

There's plenty of evidence of voter disenfranchisement if you look. The problem is, no one wants to look or believe that this kind of thing can still go on in the United States. And I didn't even list the sources I had noticed on State Police road blocks preventing voters from getting to the polls.

 

I said that I had heard the allegations but that they were just allegations. It seems to me that if there were so much evidence of disenfranchisement that there would be arrests, trials, and convictions for those responsible. Infringing on the civil right to vote is very serious and because of that I would expect to see penalties and consequences for the guilty parties.

 

Lots of things get printed in the papers and told on the news, but it’s not all true. The reporters that were fired recently for making up stories are a perfect example of this. Reporters can put any kind of spin on anything they want.

 

For example: I heard of an allegation that claimed a police roadblock was preventing voters from getting to the polls. The true was that there was a roadblock, and voters may not have been able to get to the polls, but the roadblock wasn’t there to prevent the voters from reaching the polls. There was a robbery that the police were handling and they had set up a roadblock to keep citizens out of harms way. By omitting the true purpose of the roadblock from the story, it takes the appearance of voter disenfranchisement.

 

This story from the New York Post references recounts that took place even after the election had been decided, and they show that Bush still would have won had it been legal for the recounts to continue.

 

Also, there is the issue of the military absentee ballots that weren’t counted.

 

Military Votes Not Counted

 

There were some delivery problems that led to the ballots not being delivered by the deadline. It should be noted that it was not the voters fault that the delivery failed to meet the deadline. There votes could have/should have been counted as well if you want to fight for all the votes to be counted.

 

This would appear to be the report that you were referring to by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

 

The Report In Question

 

That report was disputed as inaccurate and biased.

 

Link 1

 

Link 2

 

Link 3-Discredits The Linked Report

 

Interesting note there is that the three authors involved in the above links, one author for the first two articles, two authors for the following report, are members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and spoke out against that report as a discredit to their own organization and America.

 

An investigation by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice found no credible evidence that any one in Florida were intentionally denied the right to vote.

 

Interesting also is the fact that the counties where claimed disenfranchisement occurred were Democrat controlled. Those were Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade.

 

Particularly interesting is the fact that the original report recommends immediate litigation against the governor of Florida and other high ranking officials, yet no such litigation has taken place. That leads me to believe that the “evidence” they used to justify those claims was inconclusive and inaccurate.

 

Unless there’s a really good reason that I’m missing for not instigating the litigation against anyone, it makes no sense to complain about it, and make no attempt to discourage such actions in future elections with deterrent penalties.

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Condeleeza Rice (03.22.04) - “the fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this [Al Qaeda] before 9/11” – yet Dr. Rice's 2000 Foreign Affairs article listing Bush's top foreign affairs priorities fails to mention Al Qaeda; The Dept. of Justice's Seven Strategic Goals didn't include terrorism prior to 9/11; A senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism. (Woodruff, 2001).

 

First of all, I don’t believe that the public is always privy to everything that the current administration or the government in general, is doing. Just because it wasn’t mentioned by name, doesn’t mean that it isn’t something that they aren’t paying any attention and looking into.

 

After all, telling something to the public is synonymous to telling your enemies.

 

For that reason alone you cannot prove that she was lying.

 

Condeleeza Rice did mention on Meet The Press, prior to 9/11, that the administration was considering Al Qaeda a priority that required attention. (I don’t have the specific date.)

 

Also, the source you sited mentions that the State Department’s report didn’t mention Bin Laden extensively, which implies that he is still in there.

 

Second, the State Department isn’t even part of the President’s administration. They are their own separate governmental entity.

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

That there were significant ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq/Hussein – these simply did not exist beyond perhaps members of Al Qaeda traveling through Iraq. No evidence exists to suggest (Shovelan, 2004) that Hussein funded, supported, or even liked Al Qaeda.

 

Bush never said that there was evidence linking Hussein to Al Qaeda and 9/11. He had said that there was evidence that Hussein had met with Al Qaeda. Such meetings were mentioned in an article from The New York Times, Nov. 5, 1998.

Article

 

The 9/11 Commission is supposed to search into things related to 9/11. They said that there wasn’t clear evidence linking them together for 9/11, but there is evidence that Hussein met with Al Qaeda, and that is what Bush said existed. That 9/11 Commission quote is taken out of context.

 

Here are some links about Saddam’s connections to al Qaeda and some other terrorists:

 

Link 1-Iraq and Al Qaeda

 

Link 2

 

Link 3-More Connections Between Saddam and Osama

 

Link 4-Iraq Al Qaeda Link Comes In Focus

 

Link 5-More Connections

 

Link 6-Russia Warned US About Iraq, Putin Says

 

Link 7-Salman Pak

 

Link 8-The Iraq Al Qaeda Connections

 

Link 9-Saddam Killed Abu Nidal Over Al Qaeda Row

 

Link 10-The Clinton View of Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties

 

Link 11-Sabah Khodada

 

Link 12-The Axis of Terror

 

Link 13-Abu Nidal Organization

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Iraq had significant quantities of WMD stockpiled. – None found. Indeed, science dictates that the "vast stockpiles" of anthrax that the Bush admin claimed were "still on the books" no longer existed, since their shelf life is approximately three years under ideal conditions. Moreover, the facility used to create the anthrax was blown up in 1996. By 2003, any stored anthrax was not viable. A similar condition existed for the VX nerve agent. Even binary weaponization of sarin has a limited shelf life. The Bush admin's pseudoscience is becoming legendary, however, when this is compared and contrasted to their stand on stem cell research, therapeutic cloning, effectiveness of condoms, and environmental issues.

 

If Bush lied about that, then a lot of other people would have had to lie as well, including: President Clinton, the UN, the EU, Britain, etc…

 

Congress voted on going to war twice. They must have been convinced by the evidence presented to them.

 

The UN voted as well, and over 50 countries concluded that war was legitimate. That seems to be ignored in favor of the three of four that said they wouldn’t participate in the war, including Russia, Germany, and France. And even they were discovered to oppose the war because of the Oil-For-Food programs.

 

Oil-For-Food Links:

Link 1

 

Link 2

 

Link 3

 

Link 4

 

Link 5

 

Link 6

 

My suspicions on the WMD issue have always landed on Iraq and Hussein. If he no longer had them, why was he so uncooperative with the weapons inspectors? It would have been much more constructive and convincing to cooperate completely if he had nothing to hide.

 

Besides that there is evidence about Saddam’s WMD’s.

 

Link 1

 

Link 2

 

Link 3

 

Link 4

 

Link 5

 

Link 6

 

Link 7

 

Link 8

 

Link 9

 

Link 10

 

 

 

Of particular interest in the links above, is the fact that President Clinton considered Iraq a threat because of weapons of mass destruction and spoke on it several times.

 

 

 

Information Regarding the Uranium In Africa Issue

 

Link 1

 

Link 2

 

Link 3

 

Link 4

 

Link 5

 

Link 6

 

Link 7

 

Link 8

 

 

The following story is also a very interesting look at the Iraq WMD situation. It states what has been found, which have been mentioned in other news sources as well, and points out that everything that has been found hasn’t been of a very dramatic nature and becomes disregarded as small and insignificant, when clearly, when added together, they constitute more as a whole.

 

What's Been Found of WMD So Far

 

Also, from the day that it was originally declared that the US would go to Iraq, to the time that they actually did, a time period of 14 months transpired. 14 months is a long time to hide something if you know that someone is seriously coming to look for it.

 

Hence the information leading to the possibility of weapons being exported from Iraq prior to, and after, the war, and hidden.

 

Link 1-Weapons In Syria

 

Link 2-Weapons Shipped Out Before and After War

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

"My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax." –George W. Bush, April 26, 2003 - According to the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (Lee & Greenstein, 2003), an unspecified number of low- and middle-income families received no tax cut at all because they'd been excluded from an expansion of the child-care tax.

 

First of all, you’re implying that Bush specifically knew that such exclusions would take place and then intentionally lied by saying that “everyone who pays income tax” would receive a tax reduction. If he didn’t know that such exclusions were possible, then you can’t say that he lied. That’s circumstantial.

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

On Harken Oil and it's impending failure: "I absolutely had no idea and would not have sold it had I known." – SEC records demonstrate the contrary. Bush not only knew, he warned Harken board members two months prior to the sell-off (Lazarus, 2002).

 

I’m not sure about what that source is. It looks like an editorial column based on the fact that the author’s last name is in the title of the article.

 

That sounds like you’re talking about insider trading. If there were such conclusive evidence that he was guilty of insider trading, why wouldn’t he be in trouble?

 

I heard that Bush sold, and afterwards the stock prices actually went up, which would be quite contrary to insider trading. If he knew then he could have waited to sell and made more money.

 

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

One last lie that I can only offer anecdote about : Governor Bush claimed in 1997 that he had no intention of using the gubernatorial seat of Texas as a "stepping-stone" to the Whitehouse. – I actually believed him and voted for him then. I won't make that mistake again.

 

To lie here, Bush would have had to have intentions to run for President, and then specifically stated otherwise. If, in 1997, he didn’t plan on running for President, then that wouldn’t be a lie. Deciding to run for President at a later date, doesn’t take away from the validity of his statement when he made it.

 

He has the right to change his mind, when opportunities present themselves and situations change. You yourself have specifically defended John Kerry, and politicians in general, on “flip-flops” by stating that they can change their minds.

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

When a scientist revises his hypothesis (his position) in light of new information, he is honored and respected. When a polititian revises his position (his hypothesis) in light of new information, he's considered a "flip-flop."

 

When a scientist fails to revise in the face of evidence, he's considered a pseudoscientist. When a polititian fails to revise (remains conservative) he's considered a good polititian.

 

Currently four posts up from the bottom here.

 

Granted you’re talking more about policy decisions, but the core issue still applies.

 

John Kerry’s “flip-flops” seem designed in telling people what they want to hear in order to gain support. It’s not really him changing his mind in light of new evidence as much as it is just that he’s trying to avoid alienating potential voters. He most likely has an opinion but just doesn’t want to take a stand with his opinion. George Bush on the other hand, has been very straight forward about where he stands on issues and hasn’t been afraid to say what he believes in, rather than do what’s popular for the sake of being popular.

 

Politicians are elected to represent the people; however, they represent the group of people that was responsible for their election. A politician who only does what would be “popular” by current standards in recent polls rather than sticking to the principles that they were elected on, would become a “flip-flop” politician who is only doing what they need to in order to stay in power. And remember, what’s popular isn’t always right.

 

Also, your above analogy is totally relative to the politician and the issue. Every time a politician changes their mind it is not considered a “flip-flop”. That is entirely dependant on the circumstances under which they changed their mind: why, what new information there is, etc…

 

This is what I meant when I asked what you believe he lied about. With all these issues you are choosing to believe that he knew about information at the time of his statements and chose to be intentionally deceptive at the expense of the truth. There isn’t proof that he lied, but you believe that he did because it’s possible. You seem to be giving Kerry all the benefit of the doubt and Bush none.

 

Your perceptions of dishonesty seemed to be based more on speculation than actual conclusive proof, and also seem to have been affected by your established personal detest of the man. You want to find things wrong with Bush to complain about to justify “firing” him. That basically goes along with the “Anybody but Bush” mentality where you wouldn’t be voting for Kerry as much as you would just be voting against Bush.

 

Another interesting fact is that you want Bush fired for lying, yet Kerry has been proven a liar many times over from his claim that foreign leaders told him they want him to be elected, which was false, to lying about owning SUV’s, which he does, and many other lies mentioned in various other places.

 

By your statements you want to replace one accused, speculated liar, with a proven, established liar, and you would consider that an improvement.

 

It makes more sense to vote on the issues, than for the person as an individual, which becomes nothing more than a superficial popularity contest. If you vote on the issues it would be enough to say that you will vote for one candidate over the other simply for their positions. You wouldn’t need to constantly seek justification for your vote; you could just vote.

[SkinWalker]

About time you got back to me.

 

I can finally go to bed.

[toms]

World 'wants Kerry as president'

 

A new poll in 35 countries suggests that people around the world would prefer Democratic challenger John Kerry as US president over George W Bush.

 

Kerry scored best with traditional US allies

 

Only Filipino, Polish and Nigerian respondents clearly backed Mr Bush.

 

Most said Mr Bush's foreign policy had made them feel worse about the US since his election in 2000.

 

Meanwhile, a new survey of American and European public attitudes also suggested there had been a dramatic leap in the latter's criticism of US foreign policy.

 

More than three-quarters of Europeans surveyed in 10 countries by the German Marshall Fund of the US said they disapproved of President Bush's international actions, 20% more than two years ago.

 

The survey also showed sharp differences in how governments should respond to potential threats from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

 

More than 80% of Americans thought war could achieve justice - more than twice the proportion of Europeans.

 

"Only one in five want to see Bush re-elected," said Steven Kull, the director of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

 

"Though he is not as well known, Kerry would win handily if the people of the world were to elect the US president."

 

POLL RESULTS (KERRY-BUSH)

Norway: 74%-7%

Germany: 74%-10%

France: 64%-5%

Italy: 58%-14%

Spain: 45%-7%

UK: 47%-16%

Canada: 61%-16%

Mexico: 38%-18%

Brazil: 57%-14%

China: 52%-12%

Japan: 43%-32%

Indonesia: 57%-34%

India: 34%-33%

-----------------------------

Philippines: 32%-57%

Nigeria: 33%-27%

Poland: 26%-31%

Thailand: 30%-33%

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3640754.stm

 

Not that americans seem to care what the rest of the world thinks...

[SkinWalker]

All quotes are from Noxrepere unless otherwise noted

 

A dictatorship is characterized by a central leader who has absolute power and authority, especially with a more tyrannical nature. No matter which party they belong to, both are given their position of power by the people and likewise can have it taken away. I wouldn’t consider either party fascist based on that alone.

 

I will concede the point that the U.S. Government is not fascist, but rather that it has fascist elements and characteristics that are particular to the current administration. This, I think, is the problem that the people must consider in order to exercise their veto right by voting this administration out.

 

Forcible suppression of the opposition would include assassinating members of the other party, threatening to use force against them, etc…

 

"Would include," but be limited to? Is it not true that tyrannies in history began with fascist and tyrannical characteristics of lesser significance than assassination or terroristic threat?

 

Belligerent [as in "belligerent nationalism] implies more of a hostile approach. While both statements are out of [their] intended context and therefore subject to a greater degree of interpretation, they are both definitely strongly worded statements. I think the intent there is to get people to think about whose side they are really on.

 

Patriotism can easily be confused with nationalism if interpreted differently. They definitely aren’t taking a nationalistic approach to foreign policy in general. Any hostility is directed towards the terrorists themselves.

 

I think that the term of "belligerence" is very appropriate in this instance. I also think that the contexts of these statements are spot on in my quotes' implications. These were clearly meant as challenges to those that would dissent or speak out against the administration. They offer an implied threat of being treated as an enemy if you aren't supportive of the decisions. These quotes reflect the ideals of the administration, which cross the line of patriotism to nationalism and definitely on the path to belligerence if not already there.

 

Both parties redistrict when they are in power. It would appear to be one of the advantages of being in power. Without being familiar with the specific area, redistricting can be done for many different reasons. It would also be relevant to know how the districts became predominantly Democrat in the first place. They could originally been Republican and then redistricted to split up the Republican districts.

Racism need not necessarily apply. Perception can be relative.

 

I will agree with what you've said here. Except that I've examined these districts first hand and can tell you that they've traditionally been democratic because of the population demographics and ethnicities of the residents. Basically, you have districts A, B, and C, which are strong, Republican districts. Then add in districts D, E, and F, which are traditionally Democratic due to the ethnicities that have populated it and still do. What has occurred is that the Republican dominated legislature in Austin re-districted in such a way that D, E, and F are being split to become one with A, B, and C in order to allow the majority of the voters to remain Republican. The real kicker is that the split parts are of mostly Hispanic and African American demographic, the non-split parts that remain as the original districts, are of White (and mostly Republican) demographic.

 

The entire process isn't exactly that simple (there have been 20 to 30 page papers and articles written about it, but it's the gist as I understand it.

 

 

I think it should also be noted that “conservative” also represents a cautious approach that’s indicative of thought and foresight.

 

Which in of itself is a failure of this administration. Thought and foresight didn't occur with regard to Al Qaeda, as indicated by many of the more credible critics of the administration as well as those within the administration itself. Nor did it occur with regard to our ability to wage war in Iraq. Even I was able to predict the guerrilla fighting we face today in this very forum just before Iraq was invaded. Urban warfare and guerrilla tactics have been problematic for U.S. troops for decades because of the natural advantage that insurgents have.

 

There is still a large stance toward decreasing governmental control within the Republican Party. Individuals who are Republicans may have differing intentions, and as such do not reflect the intentions and beliefs of others.

 

But what I'm pointing out here is that there are two different forms of Republican. There are traditional Republicans (of which I've been a member of for years until now), and there are neo-conservative Republicans. The latter are the powermongers and elitists among the overall descriptor we call "Republican." Decreasing the size and scope of government and governmental control in our lives takes a second seat to establishing a solid foothold in various positions of power that can endure changes in administrations. Their interests do not offer the greatest opportunities for prosperity to the greatest number of people, rather they seek to provide great prosperity to those that are able to usurp it.

 

Granted, this is a bit of Op Ed on my part, but I think my opinions are well founded.

 

If I’m understanding right, you’re saying that Bush shouldn’t have conferred with Kenneth Lay, from Enron, before the information about the energy company’s fallacies were discovered. Wouldn’t you expect him not to condone such as activities after proof of their existence is released.

 

My chief objection to having corporate leaders of energy companies meet with the executive branch behind closed doors and closely guarded secrecy is that I don't want the country's energy policies being set with corporate interests in mind. That Cheney refused to divulge the meeting minutes to the branch that is charged with balancing the Executive one is quite telling. If there were nothing incriminating, then surely he would have followed the example of previous Executive branch members who released minutes in the past.

 

It still looks more like he was talking about the war on terrorism and not his administration as a whole. People can disagree with him on his domestic policies and still support the war on terrorism because of its importance.

 

I disagree. It seems very obvious to me that this administration want to equate "support the troops" with "support the war." And, conversely, "against the war" equated with "against the troops," all in hopes of guilting those Americans that haven't the time or ability to logically analyze the Administration into supporting it.

 

"You're either with us or for the terrorists," can't fit too many contexts.

 

What specifically do loyalties to corporations and organizations have to do with that quote? He was elected to the Presidency by the American people. They keep him in power.

 

That's the whole point. And it wasn't actually the American people that elected him President, it was the Electoral College. The "American people" chose the opposing candidate. Not by a large margin, but the popular vote was in favor of Gore. Not that how he gained office matters, but how he struggles to keep it is relevant to that quote.

 

Bush needs to push the populace to his side of the fence. He could care less about whether American society as a whole benefits from his administration. What matters is that those that he is truly loyal to, the "elites" of the nation, are given the freedom to continue profiting from his time in office.

 

Again, Op Ed on my part, but to me, this is what's indicated by the occupation of the Oval Office by an elitist personality.

 

It's time for a regime change.

 

 

One of the reasons for the war was to prevent Saddam from becoming a greater threat.

 

Bollocks. There was no indication that Saddam would pose any greater threat 10 years from now than any other despot in the world. Bin Laden is a far greater threat and deserved 100% of the overseas military action to capture or kill and then rebuild Afghanistan as promised.

 

Diplomacy hasn’t been working there.

 

Bollocks again. Diplomacy has worked in the past on many occasions and is working now. In spite of their apparent nuclear tech advances, Iran has come a long way in softening its position on the U.S. as well as its own people. Jordan's and Syria's position on Israel has likewise improved. Egypt's position on the Israeli occupation of Arab lands has definitely changed since the 1970's. But I'm talking about more than mere governmental politics. I'm also talking about cultural politics. This is something that self-righteous Westerners often overlook. Our own ethnocentrism gets in the way of understanding even the most basic cultural differences of Middle Eastern societies.

 

The “weapons inspectors” sounds like an attempt at diplomacy, and that was going on for quite a while, because Hussein wasn’t cooperating.

 

And yet, upon their return, they made great headway. They did work. For why they were ousted in the first place, you'll have to look to another of my refutations later in this post.

 

Diplomacy that doesn’t include consequences as a result of, or lack of, actions, won’t instill cooperation because they have no reason to cooperate.

 

They had every reason to cooperate: maintaining power, returning the nation to legitimate status in the world, ensuring security of their borders, and every other reason that nations have to be cooperative in the world and not antagonistic. We demonstrated without a doubt that we could remove their military and government within a matter of days in the first Gulf War (Desert Storm).

 

Following a lack of cooperation with forceful action is the threat that gives diplomacy validity. It did begin with diplomacy, but it ended in war.

 

Then you truly are either naïve or brainwashed by the warmongering neo-conservatives of this nation. It is anything but ended...

 

 

Like I said, the majority of the article was establishing that some of these people served under Republican Presidents, and that doesn’t automatically make them Republicans themselves.

 

Which is a primary criticism of mine of those that allow themselves to fall prey to the false dichotomy that exists in American politics ("you're either with us or against us...") Is it so hard to accept that there are those in civil service of their nation that don't subscribe to the bull**** that's fed to the American people about having to be a part of one party or another. Who really cares if someone is "Republican" or "Democrat?" To you, I'm probably a Democrat and a Liberal since I don't subscribe to your jaded and narrow-minded perspective (or so it appears from my perspective). And yet, I disagree with a great many Democratic and Liberal ideals. The shame of our nation is the split that exists between so called "Left" and "Right."

 

Their previous and/or current status can give them credibility, but it doesn’t explicitly mean that there perceptions are entirely correct and impartial.

 

Of course, but it should give one pause to think. My primary skepticism about these 26 would be what do they stand to gain?

 

What about other people in the same current or previous positions who disagree with their opinion?

 

But we already understand what they stand to gain, and, in spite of the credibility that they have, we have to consider that it is their jobs to compliment the President rather than rebuke it.

 

An investigation by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice found no credible evidence that any one in Florida were intentionally denied the right to vote.

 

And I have to agree. I, personally, side with the contention that the election in Florida went as fairly as that of any other state. But I believe that this is the sort of thing that need be discussed in public for several reasons, not the least of which would be to inspire new voters; educate on the voting process; and give notice to state and federal officials that the public cares about the process.

 

My presentation of the side of the argument that contends that disenfranchisement existed was to provide additional information. I think that the sources were solid, however. I also think that the media did not do a good job of examining the subject, since there were few good investigative pieces written that made a reasonable contention for or against the disenfranchisement hypothesis.

 

Interesting also is the fact that the counties where claimed disenfranchisement occurred were Democrat controlled. Those were Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade.

 

I, too, found that interesting. But perhaps for different reasons. These areas were also populated by poor Black and Hispanic residents.

 

Condeleeza Rice did mention on Meet The Press, prior to 9/11, that the administration was considering Al Qaeda a priority that required attention. (I don’t have the specific date.)

 

It couldn't have been Meet the Press, the only time she appeared between the inauguration in 2000 through September, 2001 was on June 17, 2004. She and Tim Russert discussed Bush's recent trip to Russia and his meeting with Putin. Also mentioned was Bush's reference to Africa as a country rather than a continent.

 

Second, the State Department isn’t even part of the President’s administration. They are their own separate governmental entity.

 

Untrue. The Department of State is headed by a Secretary of the President, the Secretary of State (currently Colin Powell).

 

 

Bush never said that there was evidence linking Hussein to Al Qaeda and 9/11. He had said that there was evidence that Hussein had met with Al Qaeda.

 

Which is conclusive of nothing except that Hussein met with individuals associated with or members of Al Qaeda. Hussein also met with members of the Bush Administration. That doesn't make him a Republican. But taken with the same lack of skepticism that is presented in the argument that Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda, that would place Hussein in a cabinet level position.

 

there is evidence that Hussein met with Al Qaeda, and that is what Bush said existed. That 9/11 Commission quote is taken out of context.

 

Again, I disagree. The context of the 9/11 Commission quote is very much in its context. Bush has long asserted, both personally and through his cabinet, that there were "strong" ties to Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The evidence for strong has been nothing but spurious. The implications have been deceptions and, therefore, lies.

 

"Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda," Bush told reporters at the White House. "He's the person who's still killing (CNN, 6/15/04). The only thing that Zarqawi's presence is evidence for is that he gained entry to the country and set up shop after the region went into chaos. There is absolutely no evidence that Saddam Hussein backed or even approved of the man's actions. Though, I think its safe to assume that Hussein approves now that he's at the mercy of his enemies.

 

Cheney was quoted in the same article as saying that Zarqawi "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." There has yet to be any disclosure of what these "long-established ties" are, however. It seems that the sole bit of evidence relies on the fact that "before the invasion, U.S. intelligence reports suggested Zarqawi had his leg amputated in a Baghdad hospital after being wounded fighting American forces in Afghanistan." Where does an enemy of the United States seek medical attention? In the hospital of a nation that the United States has no agents. That's the correlation.

 

Here are some links about Saddam’s connections to al Qaeda and some other terrorists:

 

And your links each appear to be spins on much of the same sources. I think Colin Powell sets the record straight in his recent Meet the Press interview (Russert, 9/12/04): "I have no indication that there was a direct connection between the terrorist who perpetrated these crimes against us on the 11th of September, 2001, and the Iraqi regime. We know that there had been connections and there had been exchanges between al-Qaida and the Saddam Hussein regime and those have been pursued and looked at, but I have seen nothing that makes a direct connection between Saddam Hussein, that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11."

 

If Bush lied about that, then a lot of other people would have had to lie as well, including: President Clinton, the UN, the EU, Britain, etc…

 

And yet, they are not the current Presidents of the most powerful nation in the world. That argument smacks of argumentum ad antiquitatem.

 

Congress voted on going to war twice. They must have been convinced by the evidence presented to them.

 

They voted to allow the Executive Branch have the power needed to exercise military force based on fallacious assumptions and outright deceptions of the Executive Branch itself. In short they trusted what the President was saying when he told them that Iraq possessed WMD and was supporting Al Qaeda. Moreover, the Bush administration implied to the American people that the invasion of Iraq was a part of the so-called War on Terror.

 

The UN voted as well, and over 50 countries concluded that war was legitimate.

 

Kofi Annan says otherwise. Period.

 

My suspicions on the WMD issue have always landed on Iraq and Hussein. If he no longer had them, why was he so uncooperative with the weapons inspectors?

 

That answer is very clear to me, but perhaps I'm relying in a dozen years of military experience. I forget that others don't view operational security in the same way that I do. Very simply, it was the UN Weapons Inspectors that offered intelligence on targets for Coalition air/missile strikes prior to the initial expulsion from the country (by Richard Butler, the Chief Weapons Inspector. Not Hussein). I would expect the Iraqi government to be anything but cooperative to this type of doom. If the inspectors can give target data once, they can do it again. In spite of the lack of cooperation, the inspectors did do their jobs when they went back. 98% of the inspections received full cooperation (Ritter, 2003) and the ones that didn't involved Presidential security, palaces and intelligence services. Ritter goes on to point out that science dictates that WMD was a non-issue since the shelf-life of the biological and chemical agents that the Bush admin was concerned about had long expired. The ability to manufacture them was destroyed and inspections teams were able to verify that they did not rebuild.

 

Besides that there is evidence about Saddam’s WMD’s. [...] Of particular interest in the links above, is the fact that President Clinton considered Iraq a threat because of weapons of mass destruction and spoke on it several times.

 

The links you provide merely put spin to the same source of information. The fact that Iraq had unaccountable quantities of biological and chemical weapons agents isn't being disputed. But the fact that these agents had limited shelf lives and that the manufacturing ability was absent seems ignored. One might be tempted to view the lack of accountability (being able to demonstrate that the agents were destroyed) as incompetence on the part of the Iraqi government, but the reality is that they probably wanted the world to think that they had chemical and biological weapons in the same way a street thug wants people to believe he has a 9mm stuck in his waistband. But when the cops stop him, he's glad it's absent.

 

Information Regarding the Uranium In Africa Issue

 

Again, similar spins on same themes. Nothing new here. That you simply post "links" and not point out the relevant passages within them is telling. Did Iraq want to get their hands on yellow-cake? Probably. But without the evidence and only a gut feeling, the information is worthless beyond using it to look for better information. That's where Western intelligence services have failed.

 

The following story is also a very interesting look at the Iraq WMD situation. It states what has been found, [yada, yada...]

 

Again, nothing new in this site. Except the a priori notions that everything they listed was related to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons production since 1991. That the Iraqi government produced and used these materials prior to 1991 is not in contention. That they continued a program since is. From the site (which is not a primary source nor lists primary sources): "[t]he Iraqis never provided any explanation of what had happened to their VX stockpiles." Here, again, is the problem with spin: the Iraqis didn't have to provide an explanation as to what happened to the VX. Science provided one (Ritter, 2003). Sarin and Tabun, the other nerve agents of interest have shelf-lives of about 5 years under ideal conditions. The shelf-life of VX is a bit longer, more so if stabilized, but even a slight deviation in the formula creates proteins that quickly degrade the chemical. Binary agents are even more stable, but also are limited in their shelf-lives though they have the longest, but they are cumbersome and require technical expertise and careful handling and storage. One cannot simply bury any of these in the desert, they have to be kept under controlled conditions. They're gone because of chemistry.

 

Your weapons shipped out before the invasion hypotheses likewise have no evidence that can be considered conclusive. There is only speculation. Speculations and conspiracy theories like this only serve to complicate matters and Occam's razor dictates that things are much simpler: they haven't existed since 1991 when they were destroyed.

 

If he didn’t know that such exclusions were possible, then you can’t say that he lied. That’s circumstantial.

 

True. Then we can at least say he's incompetent.

 

I’m not sure about what that source is. It looks like an editorial column based on the fact that the author’s last name is in the title of the article.

 

True, it wasn't a primary or even a secondary source. But I believe The Nation (Leopold, 7/18/02) could be considered a secondary source. Short of an FOIA of the SEC documents, I don't think there are many primary ones available. But there has been enough media investigation of the issue to indicate that their own FOIA and public document searches are accurate.

 

That sounds like you’re talking about insider trading. If there were such conclusive evidence that he was guilty of insider trading, why wouldn’t he be in trouble?

 

His "daddy" was the President at the time. People are known to do "favors" for those in positions of high rank. At the very least, the issue deserves significant media attention so as to investigate the issue further, though it appears that it has reached a dead end with "no significant evidence" available.

 

The overall point being, there are a lot of little questions about a little guy who ended up sitting in the Oval Office. Not just Harken, but about many other things as well. If it were one deception or one skeleton in his closet, it would be different. But this guy has lot's skeletons and many deceptions. That they are believed to be "plausibly deniable" only makes them more nefarious. A deception is a lie. Period.

 

To lie here [about wanting to go from governor to President], Bush would have had to have intentions to run for President, and then specifically stated otherwise. If, in 1997, he didn’t plan on running for President, then that wouldn’t be a lie. Deciding to run for President at a later date, doesn’t take away from the validity of his statement when he made it.

 

Making it "plausibly deniable" right? Actually, I think I did point out that the Republican Parties and lobbyists of other states, such as California and Ohio funded much of his gubernatorial campaign. Why would one state's political party be interested in the gubernatorial race of another?

 

He has the right to change his mind, when opportunities present themselves and situations change. You yourself have specifically defended John Kerry, and politicians in general, on “flip-flops” by stating that they can change their minds.

 

Indeed. But in this case Bush didn't revise a position. Based on his gubernatorial reelection funds, it is more than probable that this was always the plan. Karl Rove is far too cunning for it not to have. But I will concede that this is but opinion, however informed it may be.

 

George Bush on the other hand, has been very straight forward about where he stands on issues and hasn’t been afraid to say what he believes in, rather than do what’s popular for the sake of being popular.

Perhaps this is more my opinion than fact, but here's why I see Bush as being anything but straightforward:

 

Bush's Broken Promises

 

• "I will restore honor and integrity to the White House"
  
• No decision on Yucca Mountain until research results are available
  
• Free trade
  
• "I'm a compassionate conservative"
  
• "Leave no child behind"
  
• "I'm a uniter, not a divider"
  
• "President of all the people, not just those who voted for me"
  
• "A reformer with results"
  
• "It's the people's money, not the government's"
  
• Election reform
  
• Reforming the military

 

In addition, see my post in George W. Bush: Pros & Cons for Bush's "flip-flops."

 

Another interesting fact is that you want Bush fired for lying, yet Kerry has been proven a liar many times over from his claim that foreign leaders told him they want him to be elected, which was false, to lying about owning SUV’s, which he does, and many other lies mentioned in various other places.

 

And you have sources for these "lies" beyond anecdotal rhetoric from FOXNews? If, indeed, there was a clear "lie" that Kerry has told, I'm sure Bush would be all over it by now rather than focusing on comparing the sizes of their respective military services.

 

By your statements you want to replace one accused, speculated liar, with a proven, established liar, and you would consider that an improvement.

 

No. I want to replace one proven liar with one that is speculated to be a liar. I want to replace an elitist and incompetent boob, with someone who actually knows what its like to "lead under fire." I want to replace a moral coward with one who has moral courage.

 

If you vote on the issues it would be enough to say that you will vote for one candidate over the other simply for their positions. You wouldn’t need to constantly seek justification for your vote; you could just vote.

 

Unfortunately, the superstitiously inclined populace has the misguided idea that "a vote for Bush is a vote for God," and it is needed that people who recognize the flaws in the man's character to point them out. I'm not justifying my vote, his decision to all but abandon the War on Terror in favor of committing the lives of over 1000 American servicemen and injuring 7000 more to complete whatever agenda the neo-conservative base of the Republican Party has made the decision a no-brainer.

 

References:

 

Leopold, Jason (7/18/02). ] Bush and Harken. The Nation. July 22, 2002 (the web).

 

CNN (6/15/04). Bush stands by al Qaeda, Saddam link. ]CNN.com: the World section

 

Ritter, Scott (2003). International Peace Conference Transcript. Traprock Peace Center, July 9, 2003.

 

Russert, Tim (9/12/04). Interview with Colin Powell. NBC's Meet the Press.

[iamtrip]

First Iraq was linked to Al-Qaeda (Despite them being of a different religeous dissertation (one that has been warring between themselves for years)) --Not proven

 

Then it was "OmFGZ Iraq has WMD WE R ALL GOING 2 DIE" --- 504 days later, none have been found. I'm sure if they even found 1mg of VX they would plaster it all over the news. I'm actually surprised that they haven't taken a few viles over there and 'found' them in the sand.

 

Then it was "OMG IRAQ IS EVAL". Yes, Iraq was evil. Theres no doubt Sadaam slaughtered Kurds (using American chemical weapons), but the current status in Iraq was not a direct threat to either the world or to Iraq's people.

If this was really a motive for a war, then:

 

a). There was no rush - wait for International agreement

b). Why Iraq? Theres countless other opressed nations...Zimbabwe, Sudan...why aren't these countries liberated?

 

 

Finally, Iraq was in breach of 13 UN mandates. Fair enough. But again, why the rush to war?

Bush declared war without the authority of the UN. Therefore, a war relating to breaches of UN rulings is the responsibility of the UN, not Bush.

Israel is currently in breach of 43 UN mandates as well as there being exceptionally compelling evidence for having an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Will there be an American led war against israel? Lol.

 

 

 

1 week ago, the law preventing the sale of assault weapons and large ammo clips was not renewed. Bush received $25 million from the Gun industry.

 

 

This really says something about people even considering Bush.

[Master_Ginn]

Well. i just read this online. So it could be false but I read that Kerry actually voted for the war in Iraq. But now he's saying that he didn't ever support the war in Iraq, and that he doesn't still now. I don't know but can anyone back this up, or tear it apart? But i want the truth or else!

[ET Warrior]

Actually, as far as I'm aware Kerry did and currently DOES suppor the war in Iraq.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Feanaro

Well. i just read this online. So it could be false but I read that Kerry actually voted for the war in Iraq. But now he's saying that he didn't ever support the war in Iraq, and that he doesn't still now. I don't know but can anyone back this up, or tear it apart? But i want the truth or else!

Kerry supports the war, not it's execution.

[Master_Ginn]

Actually, as far as I'm aware Kerry did and currently DOES suppor the war in Iraq.

Now I know you hate Bush and one reason is because of the war in Iraq. Does this at all make you angry at Kerry?

[ET Warrior]

I wouldn't say it makes me angry with him necessarily, but it is something that I strongly disagree with him on.

[Master_Ginn]

John Kerry (search), a four-term Massachusetts senator, voted to give Bush authority to wage the war; the presidential hopeful said in August he would have voted that way even had he known there were no banned weapons in Iraq.

Yikes, later in the article Bush states that Kerry now says he doesn't support the war at all. Kerry had no comment, of course.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132889,00.html

the article if you're interested

[wassup]

Originally posted by Feanaro

Yikes, later in the article Bush states that Kerry now says he doesn't support the war at all. Kerry had no comment, of course.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132889,00.html

the article if you're interested

 

You are getting the wrong messages from the wrong sources. Kerry doesn't oppose the/a war against Saddam Hussein and Iraq, he denounces how the President carried the country into the war and how the administration is handling the current situation. Read his his speech in New York, delivered on Monday. He does not state anywhere that he opposes any sort of war on Iraq. However, he makes numerous points about the Bush administration's failure in responsibly neogotiating the decisions in Iraq and the war on terror in general.

[Master_Ginn]

Yeah, i got it from fox news. You know they're really reliable......haha.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oh come one. laugh

[SkinWalker]

Kerry voted to support the invasion of Iraq based on deceptive intelligence delivered to the Congress by the Executive branch. The House and Senate trusted the Bush administration was being truthful. Cheney warned of nuclear terrorism and stated on Meet the Press that Saddam was actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program. He implied that if we didn't go to war, American cities could be attacked.

 

This of course was just after 9/11, when the entire nation was still in shock over the single largest terrrorist attack in history.

 

Personally, I was skeptical about the invasion of Iraq from day 1 and was pissed that we were diverting attention from Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I said so in this forum. I'm pissed at Kerry for voting for "authorizing the President to use executive powers" in regard to action in Iraq, but I also recognize that Kerry was also attempting to answer to a constiuency in his home state that may have been calling his office and writing supporting military action on Iraq. A lot of that went on.

 

It was his job as a Senator to represent the people of his constituency. Regardless of his personal bias.

 

This is the advantage that a candidate that was not a representative has over a candidate that was. The former has no voting record to criticize. The latter can have everything from Roll Call Votes to votes against unfair Riders held against him.

 

Such is the case with Kerry. He voted against the $87 billion budget proposed by Bush to pay for the initial costs of the invasion of Iraq. Bush is quick to point this out, but fails to mention that Kerry voted for the $67 billion that it was before the $20 billion rider was attached that made a "blank check" with no accounted or ear-marked plan of spending.

 

There are other voting issues that Bush is shamelessly bringing up, knowing full well that there isn't a Republican representative that could be held to the standard he suggests Kerry should meet. Voting in Congress has little to do with one's leadership ability as a Commander in Chief. At least Kerry has experience at leadership as well as in dealing with Congress. Bush has more failures in his Curriculum Vitae than successes.

[rccar328]

But Kerry is trying to take stands for every side of his constituency - for or against the war.

 

He voted for the authorization to use force. Then he voted against the funding (actually, according to him, he voted both ways...)

 

He publicly stated that, given what we know now about pre-war intelligence on Iraq, he still would have voted to authorize the use of force.

 

Then, he came out saying that President Bush was fighting the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

 

Kerry has yet to formulate a solid position on the war, whether through his senate votes or his public statements on his campaign. About all that's really definite is that he disagrees with how President Bush is fighting the war in some elusive way that is really hard to define in any definite terms.

 

Kerry has been saying a lot lately that he's going to finesse world leaders (as in France and Germany) and get them to send troops into Iraq so that US troops can come home. Personally, I'd like to know just how he's gonna do that. It's as if Kerry thinks he has some kind of magical powers that will draw people across the globe to his side...I'm not buying it.

 

We don't need a more sensitive war on terror...we need to fight to win. And George W. Bush is doing that.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by rccar328

We don't need a more sensitive war on terror...we need to fight to win. And George W. Bush is doing that.

 

Except he's doing it very poorly. Not only did we divert almost all attention AWAY from the terrorists who attacked american soil to attack Iraq, we're doing a lousy job in Iraq. Even Republicans have been criticizing Bush's handling of our forces in Iraq so far

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by rccar328

We don't need a more sensitive war on terror...we need to fight to win. And George W. Bush is doing that.

ahem.

 

President Bush himself used the word "sensitive" in a similar context in March 2001, when he said the United States should be "sensitive about expressing our power and influence."

[SkinWalker]

Good to have you back!

 

Originally posted by rccar328

He publicly stated that, given what we know now about pre-war intelligence on Iraq, he still would have voted to authorize the use of force.

 

Then, he came out saying that President Bush was fighting the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

Kerry has yet to formulate a solid position on the war,

 

I disagree. I think Kerry has a very solid position on the invasion and subsequent occupation. Kerry voted for the authorization for the President to use military force, but he also stated that he did so with the belief that we would build a coalition of nations beyond the rag-tag nations that gave us token forces (with exception to Great Britain). He also did so with the expectation that all others methods would be exhausted; yet the inspectors were forced out in spite of the headway they made.

 

The war is wrong: there were no WMD; Saddam was not a threat; there were no credible or significant ties to the terrorists that attacked the U.S.; Bin Laden and Co. were all but ignored in favor of what we have now.

 

It was the wrong time: Al Qaeda and Bin Laden should have had priority; rebuilding Afghanistan as promised should have had a priority.

 

It is being fought wrong: Not enough troops; too few contracts to other countries or other companies beyond Haliburton and affiliates; Security is poor; far less Iraqi's have been trained -nowhere near what was promised; Security will not permit elections in January; etc.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

Kerry has been saying a lot lately that he's going to finesse world leaders (as in France and Germany) and get them to send troops into Iraq so that US troops can come home. Personally, I'd like to know just how he's gonna do that.

 

I don't know what plan Kerry has, but if it were me, I would start by rebuilding diplomatic ties with these nations. Gerhard Schroeder visited President Bush and spoke to him through an interpreter. That he refused to speak English (which he does fluently) should be noted as a very subtle insult.

 

The next thing I would do is seek the assistance of bordering countries to Iraq in order to seal the borders between Iraq and Syria, Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait. I would convince these nations that it was in their best interest to do so, since a civil war in Iraq would do far more harm to them than good.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

It's as if Kerry thinks he has some kind of magical powers that will draw people across the globe to his side...I'm not buying it.

 

No. Not "magical powers." He just doesn't have the contempt and dislike that Bush has earned.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

We don't need a more sensitive war on terror...we need to fight to win. And George W. Bush is doing that.

 

That last quote is nothing but wrong. The out-of-context Kerry quote "more sensitive war on terror" isn't accurate by itself. What Kerry said was that he would fight a "more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side." His implication clearly is that he would consider the concerns of other nations that could potentially coalesce with us and offer valuable resources.

 

Finally, if Bush was "doing that," then we wouldn't be at over 1000 dead and over 7000 injured; security would be such that elections could be held on schedule; the number of Iraqi's he promised to have trained would be much higher; a serious effort at rebuilding the infrastructure would be under way and we would stop catering to a few corporations like Haliburton; more nations would be involved in supplying troops for security; more nations would be involved in the rebuilding effort; etc.

 

George W. Bush is a screw-up. He's incompetent. He's a frickin' boob. I can't believe so many people are duped by him. I'm betting even you are questioning some of his decisions by now.